Hi Acee, sorry for the delay. I've checked the changes and the document as well as both the modules seem fine to me now.
Regards, Radek Dne 24.5.2017 v 18:23 Acee Lindem (acee) napsal(a): > Hi Radek, > > I believe I have addressed your YANG Doctor comments in the -05 version of > the draft. I used the template in RFC6087Bis, Appendix C which resulted in > some reorganization of ietf-routing-types. > > Thanks, > Acee > > On 5/24/17, 6:45 AM, "Radek Krejčí" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Reviewer: Radek Krejčí >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> I have reviewed changes made to draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types between >> revision 02 and 04 (04 was published just a week after 03). The main >> change is splitting the module into 2 modules: ietf-routing-types and >> iana-routing-types. >> >> iana-routing-types: >> - since it is IANA-maintained module, IANA should be the 'organization' >> and also the 'contact' value should be changed accordingly (see >> iana-if-type) >> >> ietf-routing-types: >> - please follow the contact template available in RFC 6087 Appendix B (or >> RFC6087bis, Appendix C) >> >> draft text: >> - if iana-routing-types is supposed to be IANA-maintained module, isn't >> IANA also supposed to be XML registrant contact (IANA Considerations >> section)? >> - my fault from previous review - since the module imports >> ietf-yang-types, it MUST contain reference to its RFC, which is RFC 6991 >> (not RFC 6021 as I wrote in my review). So move RFC 6991 reference from >> Informative references section into Normative references where it will >> replace reference to RFC 6021. >> >> Radek _______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
