Re: [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-ippm-twamp-yang-11

Pete, thanks for your reviews. Mahesh, thanks for your responses. I have entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa

> On Jun 20, 2018, at 3:39 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Pete,
> 
> Trimming it down even more.
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2018, at 5:18 AM, Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Mahesh,
>> 
>> Trimming a bit:
>> 
>> On 20 Jun 2018, at 0:36, Mahesh Jethanandani wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> 3.1 - s/The test session name that MUST be identical/The test session name,
>>>> which MUST be identical (Unless you mean something really weird that I don't
>>>> think you mean. If you don't see the difference, then trust me, you mean
>>>> "which", not "that”.)
>>> 
>>> You mean in Section 3.3.
>> 
>> Yes, sorry about that. Section 3.1 has a similar problem:
>> 
>> s/The test session name that uniquely identifies/The test session name, which uniquely identifies
>> 
>> and I forgot to note that one.
>> 
>>> How about s/The test session name that MUST be identical with the/The test session name MUST be identical to the/?
>> 
>> That's not quite right. You are giving a list of fields (as you say, "Primary configuration fields include:"), so you don't want something in that list that is a rule. The field is "the test session name", and that field MUST be identical to the client name.
> 
> What we are trying to say is that “the test session name” on the Session-Sender side must correspond to “the test session name” on the Control-Client side (not the client's name).
> 
>> 
>> When you say, "the test session name that MUST be identical with...", it sounds like there is more than one test session name,
> 
> That is not what we are trying to say. Each test session has only one name. And that is why I reworded it say “the test session name MUST be identical to the”, hopefully implying that there is only one name.
> 
>> and you're talking about the one that MUST be identical with the client name.
> 
> What we are trying to say is that every test session in the Session-Sender has a corresponding test session on the Control-Client. The name of the test session on the Session-Sender side has to match the name of the test session on the Control-Client.
> 
>> Similarly with the above, it sounds like there's one test session name which uniquely identifies it, and one that doesn't uniquely identify it. That's not what you mean.
> 
> As I say above, the test sessions on either side have only one name.
> 
> Having said all that, if you feel that your suggested edit is better, we can go with that. I just feel my suggested edit is crisper. 
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org <mailto:Gen-art@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>