[CCAMP]Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-18: (with COMMENT)

[Italo Busi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address your comments and posted the updated document as draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-19ù

This update is fixing the two nits below

Regarding the server-layer terminology, see our reply on May 14:

https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/tau2ULswlq9Tf2hr06BXCXZ9C8w/

Thanks for the support and review. 

Authors, Haomian and Italo.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: martedì 23 aprile 2024 13:23
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-18:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-18: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-
> 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-ccamp-otn-topo-yang/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the work done in this document. The topic is very specific and
> contains mainly a long YANG module, i.e., my review has focused on the non-
> YANG
> parts as I am trusting the OPS AD and YANG doctors for the YANG part.
> 
> Talking about YANG, I am afraid that this I-D exhibits an issue of doing
> 'delta' model by augmenting an existing one: the tree view is too long and is
> mostly useless. Nothing that can be addressed in this I-D of course.
> 
> Comments:
> 
> In section 1, is "server-layer network" actually the usual "underlay"? If so,
> why not using the more common IETF terminology. Else, it is worth defining it.
> 
> Also, s/captures topology related information/captures topology-related
> information/ ?
> 
> `Optical Transport Networks (OTN)` the OTN acronym is expanded twice in
> this
> section ;-)
> 
>