Hello Dan, Thanks for the review, you’ll find our answers inline. The full diff is here: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10 Best, Jean > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan Romascanu via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday 14 November 2022 19:36 > To: gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; > opsawg@xxxxxxxx; dromasca@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang- > 09 > 1. A number of acronyms need expanding at first occurrence: SAIN, TCAM, > ECMP. > May be more. Thanks, I did a pass and this should be fixed. > 2. Section 2: > > > The third YANG module, "ietf-service-assurance-interface" > (Section 5), is another example that augments the "ietf-service- > assurance" module, by adding support for the interface subservice. > > Why is this called 'another example'. If this is an example (of what?), should > not the module in Section 5 be named as such? > Rephrased: "The third YANG module, "ietf-service-assurance-interface" (Section 6), is another example that augments the "ietf-service- assurance" module, by adding support for the interface subservice." > 3. In section 3.3: > > > type yang:date-and-time; > description > "Date and time at which the symptom stopped being detected. > must after the start-date-time."; > > s/must after the start-date-time/must be after the start-date-time/ > > Fixed thanks. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
