Hi Ladislav ,Shuping and CCAMP,
Thank you for the comments. The authors update the I-D, please check the links below to see whether the new 03-revision is satisfactory.
Regards,
Minxue
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
There is also an htmlized version available at:
A diff from the previous version is available at:
-------------------------------------
王敏学/ Wang Minxue
中国移动通信研究院 基础网络技术研究所 / China Mobile Research Institute
地址: 北京市西城区宣武门西大街32号创新大厦,100053
电话: 010-15801696688-33202
传真:010-63601087
Email: wangminxue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
王敏学/ Wang Minxue
中国移动通信研究院 基础网络技术研究所 / China Mobile Research Institute
地址: 北京市西城区宣武门西大街32号创新大厦,100053
电话: 010-15801696688-33202
传真:010-63601087
Email: wangminxue@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
-------------------------------------
Date: 2023-08-14 16:49Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-flexe-yang-cm-02Reviewer: Ladislav LhotkaReview result: Ready with Issues**** General commentsThe ietf-flexe module is a relative small YANG module based on animplementation agreed upon by the OIF Forum. From the YANG point of view, theonly problem of the module that I found is that all configuration leaves in the"flexe-client" container are mandatory, which eventually makes the top-levelcontainer "ietf-flexe:flexe" mandatory. This violates the requirement in sec.4.10 of RFC 8407: Top-level data node MUST NOT be mandatory.**** Specific comments***** Section 2- The list of requirements would be better formatted as a definition list(<dl>) of xml2rfc v3. - A spurious character entity representing Unicodecharacter U+12289 appears at the end of the requirement R-Group-02.***** Appendices- It would be useful to indicate (at least schematically) that <port-num>leaves are references (leafrefs) to interfaces defined using theietf-interfaces module.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call