Hi Bo, Thanks for your comments. Please 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: Bo Wu via Datatracker [mailto:noreply@xxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday 21 November 2022 15:15 > To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; > opsawg@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang- > 09 > > > Nits/editorial comments: > > 1.It would be better to add some text to explain why the agent list is defined. > Introduction says the module should be supported by an agent. > Added the collector export use case: " The module is also intended to be exported by the SAIN collector which aggregates the output of several SAIN agents to provide the global assurance graph. In that case, only the telemetry export use case is considered." > 2. In section 3.2 and 3.4 > The "subservice" list contains all the subservice instances currently > configured on the server. > "server" is not defined in the document. Is it referring "SAIN agent"? Changed to: "The "subservice" list contains all the subservice instances currently known by the server (i.e. SAIN agent or SAIN collector)." > 3. Appendix C Example of YANG instances > Paragraph 1 > s/examples/example since there is only one example. Removed the plural, thanks. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
