Hi Med,
Thanks for accepting most of my suggestions. I consider my comments to have been resolved.
Thanks,
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
Donald
===============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 7:46 AM <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Donald,
Thank you for the review.
I like the suggestions. I went with almost all of them (except the one about the ToC) as you can see in the candidate version: https://boucadair.github.io/attachment-circuit-model/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit.txt.
Cheers,
Med
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx>
> Envoyé : vendredi 10 mai 2024 23:19
> À : <rtg-ads@xxxxxxxx> (rtg-ads@xxxxxxxx) <rtg-ads@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc : Routing Directorate <rtg-dir@xxxxxxxx>; draft-ietf-opsawg-
> teas-attachment-circuit.all@xxxxxxxx; teas@xxxxxxxx; Last Call
> <last-call@xxxxxxxx>
> Objet : RtgDir Last Call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-
> attachment-circuit-11
>
>
> 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://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url="">
> Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fen%2Fgroup%2Frtg%2FRtgDir&data=""> > .boucadair%40orange.com%7C5e2654d5909a4f91feaa08dc7136edb5%7C90c7
> a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638509727928172271%7CUnkno
> wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h
> aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DhlZd1ZXwBN4NpT1xyLrHtBMyYD
> K0zA7aUXpJ4cGc%2Fw%3D&reserved=0
>
> Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing
> ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with
> any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to
> resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-11
> Reviewer: Donald Eastlake
> Review Date: 2024-05-08
> IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
> Intended Status: Standards Track
>
> Summary:
>
> This document is basically ready for publication but has nits
> that should be considered prior to publication.
>
> This document specifies a YANG service data model for Attachment
> Circuits and a set of reusable groupings. I am not that deep a
> YANG expert but it seems to be in the right direction.
>
> Comments:
>
> I found the writing in this draft to be of good quality and
> readability. I previously review version -07 and it looks like
> the minor issues I found have been fixed and most, but not all,
> of the nits I found have been fixed.
>
> No major issues found.
>
> Minor Issues:
>
> No minor issues found.
>
> Nits:
>
> The Table of Contents only goes down two levels, to Sections
> whose number is of the form n.m. But some sections in Sections 5
> are five levels deep (n.m.o.p.q). The ToC does not need to go all
> the way to level 5, but I think it should be extended to at least
> level 3.
>
> Section 1.1, next to last paragraph: there is no reason to cite
> that the various identifiers used are ones intended for examples.
> Suggest deleting this paragraph.
>
> Section 2: I suggest adding entries for PE, CE, and NF.
>
> Section 5.2 under 'oper-status': "it is recommended to consider
> both administrative and operational service status values in
> conjunction."
> -> "considering administration and operational service status
> values
> together is recommended."
>
> Section 5.2.2.2: "abovementioned" -> "above mentioned"
>
> Section 7: two extra spaces that should be deleted:
> "nacm:default-deny- write"
> key- string
>
> Section A.11.1, first paragraph: "permits to manage connectivity
> requirements" -> "permits managing connectivity requirements"
>
> A.11.3, fourth bullet point: "permits to handle compute failures"
> -> "permits handling compute failures"
>
> Suggest replacing the two occurrences of "leverages" with "uses".
>
> All references to RFC 5798 should be replaced by references to
> RFC 9568.
>
> The nits checker finds 56 lines too long but that is probably due
> to non-ASCII characters,
>
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
> Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
> 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e3e3@xxxxxxxxx
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.
This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
