Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-27 Thread Benoit Claise
On 4/27/2016 12:43 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote: Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Martin, Benoit Claise wrote: Hi Martin, Removed some extra ones on which we agree. See in line. - Terminology: The following terms are defined in [RFC6241

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-27 Thread Ladislav Lhotka
Benoit Claise writes: > Hi Martin, >> Benoit Claise wrote: >>> Hi Martin, >>> >>> Removed some extra ones on which we agree. >>> See in line. >>> - Terminology: >>> The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 >>>

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-27 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:43:24PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Ok, how about moving the specialized-meaning-text to its own paragraph: > > > The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]: > >o configuration data > >o configuration datastore > >o datastore > >o

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-27 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Benoit Claise wrote: > >> Hi Martin, > >> > >> Removed some extra ones on which we agree. > >> See in line. > >> - Terminology: > >> The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 > >>

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-27 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:04:03PM +0200, Benoit Claise wrote: > > > > > This issue is with "The following terms are defined in [RFC6241]", but > > > > > you re-define those terms. > > > > I don't think it is correct to say that we "re-define" these terms. > > It sounds like we give the terms a

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-27 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Benoit Claise wrote: > Hi Martin, > > Removed some extra ones on which we agree. > See in line. > > > - Terminology: > The following terms are defined in [RFC6241 > ]: > > ... > > o

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-21 Thread Juergen Schoenwaelder
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:24:09PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > Hi Benoit, > > Benoit Claise wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > Here is part 1 of my AD review. > > > > I found this useful: > >

Re: [netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-21 Thread Martin Bjorklund
Hi Benoit, Benoit Claise wrote: > Dear all, > > Here is part 1 of my AD review. > > I found this useful: > http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt > > - Do we want to

[netmod] AD review draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11 (part 1)

2016-04-19 Thread Benoit Claise
Dear all, Here is part 1 of my AD review. I found this useful: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff/rfcdiff.pyht?url1=http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6020.txt=http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-11.txt - Do we want to mention RESTCONF in the abstract? From the new charter: The NETMOD