On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Benoit Claise <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 30/09/2014 21:20, Adrian Farrel wrote: > >> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for >> charter-ietf-rtgwg-04-02: Yes >> >> 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.) >> >> >> >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: >> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-rtgwg/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Fully support this: a good change. >> >> I do not believe this change needs to go for external review. >> >> Nit... >> s/an optional venue/a venue/ >> (There is nothing in "a venue" that implies compulsion) >> >> --- >> >> Just noticed something we should add: >> RTGWG would be a really good home for routing-related YANG models that >> are not specifically covered by other RTG working groups, >> > The sentence above is a good addition. > >> and for generic >> routing YANG models. >> > But how is this different than "routing-related YANG models"? > I believe having those two categories adds to the confusion. > routing-related YANG models would be for a particular protocol or routing service, while generic routing YANG models may be for specific aspects that aren't tied to protocol pieces. At least, that's how I was reading it. Perhaps Adrian, who suggested the wording, has some different feedback. Alia > Regards, Benoit > > Could this be added as a work item? >> >> >> . >> >> >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
