Jeff, Chris, The authors believe we are ready for a WG last call.
Thanks, Acee On 6/12/17, 2:32 AM, "Radek Krejčí" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
