Hi Radek, Thanks much for the review. Please see my comments in the line.
Best regards, Yuanlong -----Original Message----- From: Radek Krejčí [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 2:50 PM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10 Reviewer: Radek Krejčí Review result: Ready with Nits This is my YANG-doctor review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10. I have reviewed it mainly from the YANG perspective, since I'm not familiar with IEEE 1588. The draft as well as the YANG module ietf-ptp@2018-09-10 are in a good shape and ready to publish. I have only 2, say, editorial notes. 1) email of Rodney Cummings in the module's contact statement misses (in contrast to emails of other authors) starting ('<') and ending ('>') tags. [YJ] Good catch, I found this inconsistence too, and we will update it in the next revision. 2) I don't see any reason for the following paragraph in the appendix A3: Under the assumptions of section A.1, the first IEEE 1588 YANG module prefix can be the same as the last IETF 1588 YANG module prefix (i.e. "ptp"), since the nodes within both YANG modules are compatible. Since the module's prefix is used only locally, it may change when the module is updated (RFC 7950, sec. 11). So the mentioned paragraph seems pointless to me (and therefore confusing for readers). [YJ] Good catch, there is a misspelling here, "prefix" should be "postfix" in A.3, it is not the "prefix" statement in the YANG. The logic is, both "ieee1588-ptp" and "ietf-ptp" have a "ptp" postfix. _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
