Agree, I think having in the text "routing-related" only would suffice while preventing possible confusion.
Regards, Jeff > On Oct 2, 2014, at 6:43 PM, 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. > > Regards, Benoit > >> Could this be added as a work item? >> >> >> . > > _______________________________________________ > rtgwg mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
