Re: [CCAMP] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

["Yemin (Amy)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mirja,



Thanks for your comment.
Yes, these on-IETF specs are to be understood when correctly implement this YANG model.
They are not completed removed from the draft. After shepherd write-up, those documents are moved to informative reference section according to the https://www.ietf.org/blog/iesg-statement-normative-and-informative-references/. I hope we understand the rules correctly.

BR,
Amy, on behalf of co-authors



-----Original Message-----
From: Mirja Kühlewind [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2018 9:21 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; Fatai Zhang <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: (with COMMENT)



Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for

draft-ietf-ccamp-mw-yang-10: 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-ccamp-mw-yang/







----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMENT:

----------------------------------------------------------------------



The shepherd write-up says that there have been normative references to non-IETF docs which seem to have been removed now. I wondering is that is correct. I'm by far not an expert and didn't have time to review this doc in detail but I would think that you would need to know some details of these on-IETF specs in-order to fully understand and correctly implement this YANG model, no?