Thanks Jean for the response and for addressing my comments.
Regards,
Dan
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 12:31 PM Jean Quilbeuf <jean.quilbeuf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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
