Re: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15

Hi Tom,

The text in the former comments line have been moved within YANG description statements which I believe are more correct from a YANG language perspective

Italo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Sent: giovedì 8 settembre 2022 13:26
> To: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>; Italo Busi
> <Italo.Busi@huawei.com>; ccamp@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15
> 
> What you could do  ...
> 
> From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of tom petch
> <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> Sent: 07 September 2022 10:00
> From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
> Sent: 06 September 2022 13:33
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> Thanks for the review.
> 
> Few comments from my side:
> 
> - There isn't that much that we can do about the structure imposed by the TE-
> topology other than follow the path already established.
> 
> <tp2>
> ... is to add comment lines to the tree diagram.  Because the YANG is almost all
> uses, I find it hard to see what is happening and so need the tree diagram
> more.  I then need to match the YANG module and the tree diagram - the
> former has comment lines (good)  the latter does not so adding the same
> comment lines to the tree diagram would make it easier to switch between the
> two and see what is going on.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> - English: unfortunately many of us are non English native speakers, but luckily
> the RFC editor is extremely helpful here. His/her thorough review usually leads
> to well written documents.
> - References: G.709 is already part of the references.
> 
> <tp>
> 
> Disagree
> In the references I see G.709 March 2020 In the document I see  G.709/Y.1331
> February 2016.
> I cannot see these as the same.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> Thanks
> Daniele
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
> > Sent: Monday, 5 September 2022 13:02
> > From: CCAMP <ccamp-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Italo Busi
> > <Italo.Busi=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> > Sent: 05 September 2022 07:35
> >
> > Hi Daniele, Fatai,
> >
> > As co-author, I think the draft is now ready for publication
> >
> > <tp>
> > Mmm that's a challenge.
> >
> > Indeed it is a challenge to review for the usual reasons, the
> > structure imposed by te-topology, the imports, the uses, the many
> > changes in its history  and so on.  I tried to match it up with
> > RFC8795 s.6 and failed; I may try again in the next week or two.
> >
> > The English I find flaky, as in mismatch of singular and plural and in
> > some unusual spellings  'Costant Bit Rate' or with 'The client-facing
> > is an indicator' or 'support- client-signal' for 'supported..'
> >
> > More concretely
> > G.709/Y.1331
> > should be in the I-D references IMO.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> > Thanks, Italo
> >
> > From: Daniele Ceccarelli <daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com>
> > Sent: lunedì 22 agosto 2022 21:00
> > To: ccamp@ietf.org
> > Subject: [CCAMP] WG last call on draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-15
> >
> > CCAMP,
> >
> > the IPR declaration collection has been successfully completed and we
> > can move to the next step together with draft-ietf-ccamp-layer1-types.
> >
> > This starts a 2 weeks working group last call on
> > draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang-
> > 15 The last call ends on Monday September 5th. Please send you
> > comments to the CCAMP mailing list.
> >
> > All the IPR declarations from authors and contributors have been
> > collected and can be found in the history of the document:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang/histor
> > y/ Please note that no IPR was disclosed against this draft.
> >
> > If interested, please volunteer to be the shepherd of the draft
> > (authors excluded).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Daniele & Fatai
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> CCAMP mailing list
> CCAMP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp