Dear Michael, Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address your comments and posted the updated document as draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-17. Updates include: - Fixed text in section 4.2 fixed - Added a new clause 5 Again, thanks for the support and review. Authors, Haomian and Italo. > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Richardson via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: venerdì 17 marzo 2023 20:19 > To: rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx > Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.all@xxxxxxxx; last- > call@xxxxxxxx > Subject: [CCAMP] Rtgdir last call review of draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15 > > Reviewer: Michael Richardson > Review result: Ready > > Subject: RtgDir Early review: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-1 draft-ietf- > ccamp-otn-topo-yang > > Hello > > I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of draft-ietf- > ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16.html and a last-call review of draft-ietf-ccamp- > layer1-types-1. > > I think that this is because the first document depends upon the second > document, and the second document is being advanced in order to be ready > for it to be included on other dochuments. > > The routing directorate will, on request from the working group chair, > perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for publication to > the IESG. The early review can be performed at any time during the draft’s > lifetime as a working group document. The purpose of the early review > depends on the stage that the document has reached. > > For more information about the Routing Directorate, please > see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir > which should now be somewhere in the new wiki! > > Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-15 > Reviewer: Michael Richardson > Review Date: 2023-03-17 > Intended Status: standards track > > Summary: > > This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be > considered prior to being submitted to the IESG. > > Comments: > > I found the document easy to read and understandable. > The last GPON stuff I did was in 2010, so I don't really know the details of the > technology anymore. > > The interspersing of text into the YANG-tree output is an interesting way to > do things. I was concerned as I read that this might mean that description in > the YANG itself might be weak, and I found this to be the case. I don't have a > good answer as to whether detailed text in the YANG module is better or > worse. > > Nits: > > Section 4.2 has some odd formatting for the definition list, which I'm sure > the RPC will clean up. > > > Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-16 > Reviewer: Michael Richardson > Review Date: 2023-03-17 > Intended Status: standards track > > Summary: > > I found the document rather difficult to read. > While I had just read layer1-types, and there is a nice Figure 1, then I saw > section 3, and my eyes blurred. > > Comments: > > I don't think that the YANG Tree display adds anything to the document as is. > Maybe if it had a softer walk-through like in layer1-types it would be more > useful. > > I read the YANG, and it's among the most complex I have ever read. > > I didn't know augment took +, and there are too many dependancies for me > to > understand trivially what any of this code is doing. That doesn't mean it's > wrong, rather than it's unlikely that anyone who is not very very deeply > steeped in this content will be able to make any determination as to whether > it's correct. > > Nits: > > None that I saw. > > > > -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
