Tom, Thanks for your comments! Co-authors - please work on these, I’d also expect you to have them incorporated in the version to be presented at IETF105.
Cheers, Jeff On Jun 21, 2019, 9:50 AM -0700, tom petch <[email protected]>, wrote: > The challenge I have in reviewing this I-D is the lack of references in > the YANG modules for the objects and actions defined therein. I like to > have references since they tell me how much I should expect to > understand, how familiar I should be with the material. > > Here we now have references for the YANG import statements (which is > good) but we should also have references for many of the YANG > statements; look for example at > draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-15 > for an I-D with a comprehensive list of references in the YANG module. > > It may be that here RFC 2697, RFC 2698, RFC3289 are all I need to know > but I would like to be told that before I start looking into the YANG. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "IETF Secretariat" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 2:01 AM > > > The RTGWG WG has placed draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model in state > > Candidate for WG Adoption (entered by Jeff Tantsura) > > > > The document is available at > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-asechoud-rtgwg-qos-model/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rtgwg mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg > > >
_______________________________________________ rtgwg mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg
