Dale, thank you for your review. I have entered a No Objection ballot for this document. Authors, Dale raised some points in his review that I would have expected a response on? Thanks, Lars > On Nov 16, 2023, at 23:16, Dale Worley via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Reviewer: Dale Worley > Review result: Ready with Nits > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16 > Reviewer: Dale R. Worley > Review Date: 2023-11-16 > IETF LC End Date: 2023-11-21 > IESG Telechat date: [not known] > > Summary: > > This draft is basically ready for publication, but has nits that > should be fixed before publication. > > I recommend the Yang Doctors check the Yang module again. The last > Yang Doctor check was done on the -04 version, this is the -16 > version, and the Yang has changed considerably since then. > > Nits/editorial comments: > > Different parts of the text disagree on whether (1) this module is > applicable to all layer 1 networks, but is primarily expected to be > used for OTN layer 1 networks, or (2) is applicable to OTN layer > networks. E.g. the two sentences of the Abstract seem to take > opposite approaches, sec. 4.1 seems to be OTN-specific. Presumably > the intention is agreed upon; the text needs to be made consistent > with the intention. > > 3. Prefix in Data Node Names > > +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+ > | Prefix | YANG module | Reference | > +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+ > | l1-types | ietf-layer1-types | This Document | > +-------------+---------------------------+----------------------+ > Table 1: Prefixes and Corresponding YANG Modules > > > RFC Editor Note: Please replace XXXX with the number assigned to the > RFC once this draft becomes an RFC. > > Should "This Document" be replaced by "RFC XXXX"? > > 6. YANG Code for Layer1 Types > > identity ODU0 { > base odu-type; > description > "ODU0 type (1.24Gb/s)."; > > For "description" values that are not full sentences, there is > inconsistency whether the value ends with a period or not. There is > also inconsistency in values that are full sentences. (Perhaps this > is a matter for the Editor.) > > Appendix A. Examples of OTN Label Ranges > > There are several instances of > > "//not-present tsg": "", > > I suspect they are intended to be > > "// not-present tsg": "", > > [END] > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > Gen-art@xxxxxxxx > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
