Thanks Med. One more question.
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready to be handed off to the responsible Area Director? [Reza] The document is well-written. Having said that the following suggestion communicated with authors. - Any reason that the tree format of "module ietf-ac-common" is not included. IMO, it provides more clarity to the reader. Reza From: mohamed.boucad...@orange.com <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> Date: Tuesday, May 14, 2024 at 9:05 AM To: Rokui, Reza <rro...@ciena.com>, Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>, opsawg@ietf.org <opsawg@ietf.org>, Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com>, Richard Roberts <rrobe...@juniper.net>, Oscar González de Dios <oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com>, samier.barguil_gira...@nokia.com <samier.barguil_gira...@nokia.com> Subject: [**EXTERNAL**] RE: shepherd review for draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac Hi Reza, Thank you for preparing the writeup. Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Rokui, Reza <rro...@ciena.com> Envoyé : lundi 13 mai 2024 21:35 À : Joe Clarke (jclarke) <jcla...@cisco.com>; opsawg@ietf.org; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>; Wubo (lana) <lana.w...@huawei.com>; Richard Roberts <rrobe...@juniper.net>; Oscar González de Dios <oscar.gonzalezded...@telefonica.com>; samier.barguil_gira...@nokia.com; Rokui, Reza <rro...@ciena.com> Objet : shepherd review for draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac Hi authors, I am document shepherd for draft-boro-opsawg-teas-common-ac. I am preparing the shepherd writeup and have following questions. Question 8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc; [Med] pyang is integrated in our tooling to validate the YANG module. This is also reflected in the Datatracker: 0 errors, 0 warnings [datatracker.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac/__;!!OSsGDw!PPw4N8lmRYYhkJIAAwgUtUJ9WBVdDaxSHmi3qihFpYWelFOcNNC2nnAF28SL8jsIcL-s04wN4NA-grpZMpZE2Pc$> · Referring to https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-10.txt [author-tools.ietf.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/author-tools.ietf.org/api/idnits?url=https:**Awww.ietf.org*archive*id*draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-common-ac-10.txt__;Ly8vLy8!!OSsGDw!PPw4N8lmRYYhkJIAAwgUtUJ9WBVdDaxSHmi3qihFpYWelFOcNNC2nnAF28SL8jsIcL-s04wN4NA-grpZ27hyUxY$> . It seems there a few warnings and errors. Are these resolved? If so, please send a summary. [Med] Most are false negatives. The only valid one is the RFC 2119 boilerplate text. Will remove it in the next iteration. Question 15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the [IESG Statement on Normative and Informative References][16]. · Please confirm this [Med] I think we are OK, but please let us know if we misclassified any. Question 16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did the community have sufficient access to review any such normative references? · [ISO10589]. Is this reference essential to be part of the RFC? [Med] Yes, because this is the authoritative ref for ISIS. Question 17. Are there any normative downward references (see [RFC 3967][9] and [BCP 97][10]) that are not already listed in the [DOWNREF registry][17]? If so, list them. - Please comment on following normative RFCs: RFC 8174 category is BCP RFC 7348 category is Informational and is already in DOWNREF registry RFC 3688 category is BCP RFC 2119 category is BCP [Med] ACK. I confirm in particular that 7348 is already in the DOWNREF registry. Question 19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If so, does the Data tracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed. · IMO the answer is NO. Please confirm. [Med] ACK. Reza ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you.
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
