Thanks for the review. I like the proposal to merge the text currently found in the appendix into the introduction (and to also point out that Section 2 provides an overview of all types). I am less sure a detailed discussion why specific types were added is useful. At the end it is the NETMOD working group managing this document. Perhaps I should add a statement like "Additional type definitions may be added in the future by submitting proposals to the NETMOD working group." to clarify that there is a process to propose new types. And this may also serve as a hint that detailed discussions can be found in the working group archives. /js On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 08:14:11AM -0700, Giuseppe Fioccola via Datatracker wrote: > Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola > Review result: Has Nits > > This document is clear for its scope. It simply adds new type definitions to > the "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" YANG modules and obsoletes RFC 6991. > > The new types defined in the YANG modules are quite understandable, but I would > suggest to add some explanation, maybe in section 2, about the motivations > behind the addition of these new types (for example, the new date/time related > types compared to the date-and-time type already defined in RFC 6021). > > I noticed that there are two appendixes about the changes from RFC 6991 and > from RFC 6021, which only refer to section 3 and section 4. I think it is > useful to add a reference also to section 2, since the tables there show the > new types with respect to RFC 6991 and RFC 6021. Additionally, you can consider > to move these appendixes as subsections of section 1. > > > -- Jürgen Schönwälder Constructor University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany -- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
