Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka Review result: Ready with Nits I also did an early YANG Doctors review [1]. My comments regarding YANG module revisions and normative references are addressed in the current revision. The suggested naming changes were either accepted or, I assume, addressed in the WG and rejected (which is OK). Compared to the previously reviewed revision -09, the current revision contains one additional YANG module: ietf-segment-routing-mpls. This module adheres to the same high standards as the previous two, and I discovered no issues with all of them. [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-spring-sr-yang-09-yangdoctors-early-lhotka-2018-10-24/ Comments ------------ - The title of Section 6 (States) still looks weird to me. My suggestion is to use "State Data" instead. - The title of Section 8 should use plural "YANG Modules" because it contains three modules. It would also be helpful to introduce a subsection for each module. - Due to the RFC line length limit, the example in Appendix A uses a line break inside a URI of a XML namespace declaration, which makes the XML invalid. This can be probably avoided by including the XML namespace declaration for "sr-cmn" in the top-level element, i.e. <routing xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-routing" xmlns:sr-cmn="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-segment-routing-common"> If not, it would be better to use conventions of RFC 8792. - Assuming that the example is intended for human readers, it might be better to provide it in the JSON representation per RFC 7951. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
