Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-17: 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-opsawg-l2nm/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

# ART AD Review of draft-ietf-opsawg-l2nm-17

cc @fpalombini

Thank you for the work on this document.

I have a couple of comments, hopefully easy to fix.

I have not finished reviewing the examples in appendix, I might update this
ballot if I have additional comments.

Francesca

## Comments

### boolean for enabled/disabled

Section 8.4:
```
             "Controls whether loss measurement is enabled/disabled.";
```
```
                               "Controls whether ingress replication is
                                enabled/disabled.";
```
```
                               "Controles whether P2MP replication is
                                enabled/disabled.";
```
Suggest rephrasing for clarity as other boolean fields: "Controls whether X is
enabled ('true') or disabled ('false').";

### needs a language tag

Section 8.4:
```
                   leaf description {
                     type string;
                     description
                       "A textual description of the VPN network
                        access.";
```
```
               leaf description {
                 type string;
                 description
                   "Textual description of a VPN node.";
               }
```
As these fields contain human-readable text, I believe it might need a language
tag, or specify why a tag is not needed, as specified by RFC 5646. I think that
such a tag is not necessary for pw-description and vpn-description as, if I
read them correctly, that is covered by the docs where those are initially
defined (for example, for pw-description, this is covered by the last paragraph
of section 5.5 of RFC 4447). Do let me know if I missed these
vpn-network-access description and vpn-node description, and their language are
also described here or inherited from another doc.

## Notes

This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the
[`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into
individual GitHub issues.

[ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md
[ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments



_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

Reply via email to