From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Nicolai Leymann via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> Sent: 12 December 2022 11:09 To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann Review result: Ready <tp> Borrowing a suitable e-mail to respond to, there are a lot of changes from -17 to -19 and some new issues. I agree with Nicolai about the ambiguity of P RFC6991 is no longer an import but it is still present in several places. I love to keep pointing out that an unrestricted YANG string can be 18446744073709551615 characters long; will boxes be able to support this? will they be able to support YANG keys of this length? Is there a convention for how the ends are referenced? This has a mix of 'one' and 'other' with '-1' and '-2' error message about the ids would be better as 'end point IDs' uni access type could do with a reference; G.709? Tom Petch Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see https://trac.ietf.org/trac/rtg/wiki/RtgDir This is the second review from Routing Directorate. Overall I think the draft is ready for publication but there a still a few nits. This review takes place in support of CCAMP working group last call. Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-l1csm-yang-19 Reviewer: Nicolai Leymann Review Date: 09 December 2022 IETF LC End Date: Not yet started Intended Status: Draft Standard Nits: either "Layer 1" or "layer 1" should be used consistently throughout the document: - Page 5, First sentence: "The benefit is that the same layer 1 transport network resources are" - Page 6, "The L1CSM YANG data model describes the layer 1 connectivity services" References to "RFCXXX", "RFC XXX" and "RFCYYY" need to be fixed. - (In some cases there is a comment that this needs to be updated but not not in all cases. E.g., Page 9) Page 6, Table has no caption, References need to be fixed ("RFCXXX"/"[RFCYYY]") Some of the comments from Adrians review (e.g., use of "P" as Protcol but also in different context in Figues are not addressed (yet)). _______________________________________________ CCAMP mailing list CCAMP@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
