tom petch <daedulus@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Looking some more at this I-D, I have more concerns about the YANG
> module. My review is informal - I recommend that the WG Chair request a
> formal review because I may be missing something particularly in
> connection with the 'refine' statements.
> The I-D has namespace
> "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-voucher-request"; prefix "vch";
> whereas RFC8366, which it augments, has namespace
> "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-voucher"; prefix vch; Different
> module, same prefix; this contradicts a SHOULD NOT in RFC8407.
okay, so I shoudl change it to "vcr" for VouCher Request then?
I think that this will have affects on the constrained-voucher document, but
that is easily fixed.
> Further, this I-D defines import ietf-voucher { prefix v; i.e. does not
> use the prefix defined in RFC8366. This contradicts a MUST in RFC8407.
okay, got it, fixed it.
> There is a discrepancy between the e-mail addresses of the authors of
> the YANG module and of the I-D, for
> Author: Kent Watsen Author:
Fixed.
> Toerless Eckert I note that the e-mail addresses for the YANG module
> are the same as those for the YANG module in RFC8366; I do not know
> which are correct.
People moved to different companies since publication :-)
> contact "WG Web: <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/anima/> should be https:
> and usually points to datatracker.ietf.org not tools
Fixed.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
