Kent Watsen <kent@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi Lada, > > Thank you for your review! > > Below are responses to your comments. > > K. > >> On Apr 12, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka >> Review result: Ready with Nits >> >> The document defines two YANG modules - ietf-http-client and ietf-http-server - >> that belong to a relatively complex set of modules. The modules are well >> designed and nicely documented, both in the descriptions and document text. > > :) > > >> **** Comments >> >> - Sections 2.1.3 and 3.1.3: the sentence 'The "..." module does not contain any >> protocol-accessible nodes.' is misleading in that the modules do define data >> nodes that are intended to be protocol accessible after the corresponding >> grouping is used. I know this is a part of the NETCONF/YANG lingo, but another >> formulation that clearly says what's going on might be preferable. > > I fixed this when I addressed the same comment made in the “tcp-client-server” draft. OK > > > >> - Sections 2.2 and 3.2: the XML snippets use document elements "http-client" >> and "http-server", but these containers are not defined in the corresponding >> modules. This is confusing, my suggestion is to rewrite the examples in the >> JSON representation where no such top-level node is necessary. > > Same solution as for the “tcp-client-server” draft, which is to simply remove the first and last lines, for the non-existent “container” statement. > > Update: I was going to proactively-apply the same solution to the “ssh” and “tls” drafts, but I couldn’t because the top-level element defines additional prefixes. This is where your “JSON” idea could help, though, for some reason, having a mix of XML/JSON in the suite of drafts is off-putting to me. We could convert all the examples to JSON, but that’s a fair amount of work too… If you already have that "foobar-usage.yang" module, you could possibly translate these snippets automatically using the "jsonxsl" plugin of pyang. I also think that JSON examples are easier to parse for a human reader. > > How about adding an XML-comment indicating that the top-level element doesn’t really exist? Yes, as I wrote in the other review, some explanation might suffice. Lada > > >> - Placeholders BBBB, CCCC and EEEE are defined in Editorial Note but never used > > Fixed. > > >> **** Nits >> >> - RFC 7950 is cited repeatedly (4 times) in a general context, e.g. whenever >> YANG 1.1 is mentioned. It should suffice to use the citation at the first >> appearance. > > Fixed. Also in the “ssh” and “tls” drafts. > > > K. > -- 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
