Re: [CCAMP] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: (with COMMENT)

[Warren Kumari <[e-mail]>]

Okey dokey — thank you.
W


On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 8:55 AM, Italo Busi <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Warren,
>
> Thank you for the review, the authors have updated the document to address
> your comments and posted the updated document as
> draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-17.
>
> Updates include:
>
> - The meaning of "A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types" has been further
> defined in the document, we don't feel a title change is needed.
> - Expanded acronyms on first use, thank you for the observation.
>
> Again, thanks for the support and review.
>
> Authors, Haomian and Italo.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[e-mail]> Sent: mercoledì 13
> dicembre 2023 22:17
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; ccamp@
> ietf.org; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [CCAMP] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-
> types-16: (with COMMENT)
>
> Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types-16: 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-layer1-types/
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I had originally written this up as a DISCUSS ballot, but am submitting it
> as NoObjection instead because Eric and John are holding DISCUSS on this.
>
> The title is "A YANG Data Model for Layer 1 Types", and this speaks to a
> specific subset of L1 types -- the title really should be updated to
> clarify this. In addition, there are many acronyms that should be expanded.
>
>