Dale, thank you very much for the detailed review of this I-D. Med, thank you for the reply (and the -05), see below my INT AD input to some remarks/questions
-éric On 06/05/2019, 09:50, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > De : Dale Worley via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] > Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 2019 04:22 > > 3. Security Considerations > > These identies are intended to be > referenced by other YANG modules, and by themselves do not expose any > nodes which are writable, contain read-only state, or RPCs. > > Logically, this is correct, but I think it would read better if > s/contain read-only state/contain readable state/. [Med] I will leave the initial wording. EVY> I agree with Med on this one > > 6.2. Informative References > > [TUNNELTYPE-IANA-REGISTRY] > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, "tunnelType > Definitions", <https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi- > numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-6>. > > Given that this document specifies substantial interaction with this > registry, this reference should be normative. [Med] We used to have this one as normative but we received comments asking to move it informative. I will leave this one to the AD. EVY> I agree with Dale on this one. The IESG statement on normative/informative references states: "Normative references specify documents that must be read to understand or implement the technology in the new RFC, or whose technology must be present for the technology in the new RFC to work" and the specific IANA registry is indeed required. Thank Med for having move it to the normative section. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
