Hello Per, Thanks for the revised I-D, as you may have seen, I have now updated my ballot.
Regards -éric From: Per Andersson <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 3 June 2026 at 00:03 To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <[email protected]> Cc: The IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Hi Éric, Thanks for the review! The -12 revision should address your comments. Answers inline. On Mon, Jun 1, 2026 at 1:58 AM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-module-filename-11: Discuss > > 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/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > DISCUSS: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for the work done in the document. Nevertheless some non-blocking > comments: > > ### Section 2 > > In `The name of the files SHOULD be of the form` the SHOULD has no guidance > required per > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-statement-on-clarifying-the-use-of-bcp-14-key-words/ > > This also contradicts (apparently) the later sentence `then a file name that > use the YANG semantic version MUST be created`. It reflected what was defined in RFC 7950, which used SHOULD without any guidance. It is now changed to SHOULD in the entire paragraph and guidance for why and when it is acceptable to not use the YANG module file name convention is added. > It is also unclear whether TWO files are to be created? Clarified this. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > ### Abstract > > s/This document presents/This document *defines*/ as it is a PS I-D. Thanks! > ### Section 2 > > Should the ASCII code for '@' be specified as well ? Added this. -- Per
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
