Tarek
Getting there .
You will need to have a reference to the new I-D references in the body
of the I-D else you will get unused references. One way to do this is
to have a Section 4.1 This module references [RFC3272]. [.... I have
not gone through and seen how many this applies to but imagine it is
most of them.
Also you have G.8031 but G808. Not wrong, but...
import ietf-routing-types { prefix "rt-types";
now has the right RFC but the wrong title; should be
Common YANG Data Types for the Routing Area
Tom Petch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2019 2:10 PM
> Hi Tom,
>
> Thank again for your review comments below. We've uploaded version
04/-05 which attempts to address these comments.
> See inline [TS] for resolution.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ietfa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 12:13 PM
> To: Jan Lindblad <janl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tarek Saad <tsaad@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx" <yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx>,
"draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@xxxxxxxx"
<draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@xxxxxxxx>, "ietf@xxxxxxxx"
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>, "teas@xxxxxxxx" <teas@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [Teas] not a Yangdoctor review of
draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03
>
> Tarek
>
> The YANG modules have lots of references - good - but they are not
in
> the I-D references - not good.
>
> My list is
>
> 3272
> 4202
> 4328
> 4657
> 5817
> 6004
> 6205
> 6511
> 7139
> 7308
> 7551
> 7571
> 7579
> 7951
> G.808
> G.8031
> G.8131
> G.873.1
>
> [TS]: thanks. I've added the missing references and they should show
in the I-D references now.
>
> s.3.1 I would find more usable if the types were in an order I
could
> recognise, such as alphabetical
>
> [TS]: OK, I tried an attempt to sort the typedefs alphabetically.
>
> import ietf-routing-types { prefix "rt-types";
> reference "RFC6991: Common YANG Data Types";
> perhaps RFC8294 is intended
>
> [TS]: corrected to RFC8294
>
> " defined in ietf-network.yang, to help user to understand ""
> might benefit from a reference - is this
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo?
>
> [TS]: added reference RFC8345.
>
> /"Then index of the label/ "The index of the label /
>
> [TS]: fixed typo.
>
> container tiebreakers {
> description
> "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply
> on an equally favored set of paths to pick best";
> list tiebreaker {
> description
> "The list of tiebreaker criterion to apply
> on an equally favored set of paths to pick best";
> One description is perhaps enough
>
> [TS]: removed/updated redundant description.
>
> uses path-objective-function_config;
> using _ is not wrong but is discouraged, mixing _ with - in a
label more
> so
>
> [TS]: OK, we have moved away from using "_" in the naming.
>
> /This document registers a YANG module/
> This document registers two YANG modules/
>
> [TS]: fixed typo.
>
> name: ietf-te-types namespace:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-
> types prefix: ietf-te-types reference: RFC3209
> name: ietf-te-packet-types namespace:
> urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-te-packet-types prefix:
ietf-te-
> packet-types reference: RFC3209
>
> Perhaps /3209/XXXX/
>
> [TS]: fixed.
>
> Regards,
> Tarek
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jan Lindblad" <janl@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Tarek Saad (tsaad)" <tsaad@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx>;
> <draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types.all@xxxxxxxx>; <ietf@xxxxxxxx>;
> <teas@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2019 10:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [Teas] Yangdoctors early review of
> draft-ietf-teas-yang-te-types-03 (was -01)
>
>
> >
>
>
>
>
