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) > > > > > > > >