Hi Roni, Thank you for double checking. As per your comment: > I was just wondering why it went from version -10 to -14 I confirm that the changes since -10 are very minor (mainly fixing some nits). The version bump was a side effect of addressing the OPS directorate review which raised a point related to the NPTv6 part in the module (NPTv6 is defined as Experimental while this draft targets Standards tracks): https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/-kQoJuw7J7d97GaqAoNwjJoKDW8. NPTv6 was reintegrated based on the comment made by B. Claise: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/opsawg/bXXmrr9VeWXuDBZ-ebyPRSqCHgI Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Roni Even [mailto:ron.even.tlv@xxxxxxxxx] > Envoyé : dimanche 17 juin 2018 08:28 > À : gen-art@xxxxxxxx > Cc : draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang.all@xxxxxxxx; ietf@xxxxxxxx; opsawg@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-14 > > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review result: Ready > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area > Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed > by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just > like any other last call comments. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-nat-yang-?? > Reviewer: Roni Even > Review Date: 2018-06-16 > IETF LC End Date: 2018-06-28 > IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat > > Summary: > The document is ready for publication as a standard track RFC. > I was just wondering why it went from version -10 to -14 > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: >
