Hi Mike, Thanks for your review!
The -12 revision should address your comments. Answers inline. On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 6:24 PM Mike Bishop via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. Indeed, thanks. Removed the last paragraph. > ### 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.) This was unintentional, I-D.ietf-netmod-iana-yang-guidance is moved from Normative to Informational References. > ## 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 > ``` Thanks! -- Per _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
