Re: [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-spring-sr-yang-20

[Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Lada,

Thanks for the review.  I've uploaded version -22 to address your comments. Please see my answers inline for details.

Thanks,
Yingzhen

On 8/26/20, 1:59 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@xxxxxx> wrote:

    Hi Yingzhen,

    please see my responses inline.

    Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

    > Hi Lada,
    >
    > Thank you for your review, really appreciate. 
    >
    > I've uploaded version -21 to address your comments and please see detailed answers below inline starting with [YQ].
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Yingzhen
    >
    > On 8/24/20, 5:51 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker" <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
    >
    >     Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
    >     Review result: Ready with Nits
    >

    ...

    >
    >     - 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.
    > [YQ]: changed the title and added an introduction of each module.

    I meant to add a subsection of sec. 8 for each module so that they are clearly separated and each of them easily accessible from the table of contents.

[YQ]: sorry for the misunderstanding. I've added a subsection for each module, and it does look better now.
    >
    >     - 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.
    >
    > [YQ]: I tried the format as your suggested, but somehow I could get it pass yanglint, so added "\" per RFC 8792.

    OK.

    >  
    >     - Assuming that the example is intended for human readers, it might be better
    >     to provide it in the JSON representation per RFC 7951.
    >
    > [YQ]: Added JSON format.

    Looks good, maybe only the first brace can be moved to the left.
[YQ]: fixed.

    Thanks, Lada

    >
    >

    -- 
    Ladislav Lhotka 
    Head, CZ.NIC Labs
    PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call