Thanks, this addresses all of my concerns. Additional comments below. On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote: > On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Ben Campbell wrote: >> I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) >> reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see >> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html). > > Thanks for your review. I will followup on your comments below, CCing > the WG mailing list so that the WG sees the exchange between us. > >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments >> you may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-07 >> Reviewer: Ben Campbell >> Review Date: 2010-04-06 >> IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-09 >> IESG Telechat date: (if known) >> >> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. There are a few minor issues that might should be considered prior to publication. >> >> Major issues: None. >> >> Minor issues: >> > [...] >> -- Section 4, domain-name, description, paragraph 2: "...systems that want to store host names in >> schema nodes using the domain-name type are recommended to >> adhere to this stricter standard to ensure interoperability." >> >> should "recommended" be normative? > > I think I would leave it lowercase unless someone can provide a > reference where a normative version of the recommendation to follow > RFC 952 rules is written down. Our goal in general is to represent > what the underlying technology (DNS in this case) specifies, it is not > our goal to be more strict than the underlying specifications. > Okay. [...] >> -- date-and-time, pattern and description: >> >> Which is the normative description for date-and-time? The ABNF in >> the description, or the pattern attribute? I assume the second, but >> fear the presence of ABNF will make others assume the first. > > Ideally, they should be consistent - and I hope they are. The ABNF is > more detailed - if you read the comments - and copied from RFC 3339. > If we make a change, we should completely remove the ABNF from the > description and simply leave the pointer to RFC 3339, e.g. > > For a more detailed description, see section 5.6 of RFC 3336. > > Since the ABNF is copied, this does not really change much unless RFC > 3336 gets updated perhaps. For now, I have left things as they are but > I am open to be convinced to remove the ABNF if someone feels strongly > about this. I don't feel strongly--it was just a mild general concern that duplicate _normative_ text can lead to future errors if, as you say, the RFC gets updated. But if you see value in having the ABNF in the description, that's okay with me. At the most, it might be worth putting a comment in the description to see the RFC for the full normative definition. [...] Thanks! Ben. _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf