Hi Benoit,
On 2/7/18, 5:28 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)"
<rtgwg-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09: No Objection
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.)
Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Same remark as in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise
The title should be: "YANG module for network instance"
Ok - Although I used "YANG Model for Network Instances".
This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly mentioned. Like in the
RFC7223bis abstract.
Well, it is not a BIS document and at some point all models will be NDMA
compliant. However, I have added it. Note that I-D references should not be in
the abstract - I guess this will get updated during RFC Edit?
No need to repeat the tree-diagram reference in:
The NI model can be represented using the tree format defined in
[I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] as:
I have removed the second reference.
Like for the LNE YANG module, you still have the -state in the example.
Fixed.
Thanks,
Acee
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
_______________________________________________
rtgwg mailing list
rtgwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
