Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (section 9. built-in types)

On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:01:41PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > * p137 > > > > Y25-02 says: > > > > Keep the auto-numbering procedure for enums and bits and add an > > explicit warning that inserting enum or bits definitions or > > reordering enum or bits definitions

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (section 9. built-in types)

Ladislav Lhotka wrote: > Ladislav Lhotka writes: > > > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> here is the review of section 9 or draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07; I > >> have finish now a complete review of the

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (section 9. built-in types)

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > Hi, > > here is the review of section 9 or draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07; I > have finish now a complete review of the document. The most important > bug I spotted is likely that section 9.4.6 is empty. Ha! It seems to have

Re: [netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (section 9. built-in types)

Juergen Schoenwaelder writes: > Hi, > > here is the review of section 9 or draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07; I > have finish now a complete review of the document. The most important > bug I spotted is likely that section 9.4.6 is empty. Yes, and the

[netmod] review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07 (section 9. built-in types)

Hi, here is the review of section 9 or draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-07; I have finish now a complete review of the document. The most important bug I spotted is likely that section 9.4.6 is empty. /js * p126 OLD Some types have a lexical representation that depends on the XML