Subject: Re: [mpls] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: (with COMMENT)

From: Tarek Saad <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 14:50:05 +0000

Hi Murray,

Thanks for your thorough review and comments. We have posted rev -16 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-16)  of the document and have addressed all your comments. 
Please see inline for responses… [TS]

On 9/7/20, 5:31 PM, "Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: No Objection

    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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

    In Section 3, it says: "This document registers the following URIs in the IETF
    XML registry."  I think it should say "This document registers the following
    URIs in the 'ns' sub-registry of the IETF XML registry."
[TS]: addressed.

    I can relate to Barry's comment about "module" vs. "model".  I think I
    understand the difference, but I've run into this with every YANG document
    that's come up lately:  I think the "model" is a formal expression for a
    configuration of some network component, while "module" is a chunk of YANG code
    that describes that model, which can be evaluated (a la ABNF) against some
    input to validate a configuration.
[TS]: fixed.

    I also concur with Barry's remark about BCP 14 being cited when it's not used
    anywhere.  This should be cleaned up (by either using it, or removing the
    citation).  I'm tempted to DISCUSS this, but I assume since it's easily
    resolved that that'll happen in due course.
[TS]: we have removed it since was not used.

Regards,
Tarek