Subject: [dhcwg] Murray Kucherawy's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-24: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2021 22:57:34 -0800

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-24: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

This should be easy to resolve, but we have to ask as it's pretty important:

Question 7 of the shepherd writeup, about the authors and BCP 78/79, appears
not to have been answered.  Were these declarations made?

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I suggest breaking Section 6 into two subsections, one for each batch of
registry operations.

A possibly ignorant question about YANG modules: Since RFCs 3319 and 8987 are
referenced from within the module itself, shouldn't they be normative
references?

---

From: Timothy Winters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2021 09:41:10 -0500

Hi Murray,

My apologies. I asked the question during the write-up process but must
have missed recording the answer.   I have updated the shepard document.

Mailing list of question and answer:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/4AsYOwIHx9L3JaNz6rF_v5LqzFA/

~Tim