[Last-Call] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hi Jürgen,
Thank you for your reply.
Your proposed changes look good to me.

Regards,

Giuseppe


-----Original Message-----
From: Jürgen Schönwälder <jschoenwaelder@constructor.university> 
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2024 12:20 PM
To: Giuseppe Fioccola <giuseppe.fioccola@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis.all@xxxxxxxx; last-call@xxxxxxxx; netmod@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16

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




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux