Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # IESG review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-11 CC @MikeBishop ## Comments ### Section 2, paragraphs 2 and 6 ``` If a revision has an associated YANG semantic version (ysv:version) then a YANG file MUST be created that use the YANG semantic version in the file name. Additionally, a YANG file with the revision-date MAY be created. The name of the files SHOULD be of the form: ``` ``` If the YANG module (or submodule) has an associated YANG semantic version (ysv:version), then a file name that use the YANG semantic version MUST be created. In addition, a file with the revision date in the file name MAY be created as well. ``` Are these paragraphs duplicative? They seem to be saying the same thing. ### DOWNREFs DOWNREF `[I-D.ietf-netmod-iana-yang-guidance]` from this Proposed Standard to Informational `draft-ietf-netmod-iana-yang-guidance`. (For IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.) ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Typos #### Section 1.2, paragraph 1 ``` - it possible to quickly identify the module revision; compared to - - ^ ^^^^^^^ - + it possible to quickly identify the module revision without + ^^^^ ^ ``` #### Section 2, paragraph 5 ``` - as its use will convey compatibility status at a glance withouth the - - ``` ### Grammar/style ### Section 1.2, paragraph 1 ``` The motivation for using YANG semantic version instead of revision date is that it conveys additional information to the user. A ``` Lots of extra words here. "Using ... date conveys...." #### Section 1.2, paragraph 1 ``` - available as early as possible, i.e. in the module file name, makes - --------------------------- - ``` #### Section 2.1, paragraph 1 ``` - As can be seen above, all valid identifiers for YANG semantic version - ---------------------- ``` #### Section 2.1, paragraph 3 ``` - One consequence of this is that there might exist two modules derived + There might exist two modules derived ``` _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
