Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

["Susan Hares" <[e-mail]>]

Martin: 

You are correct, this is not a concern about the rules for the Yang module
itself.   Hence, my questions to Ignas about why he placed a DISCUSS based
on "introduction material" that was not specified in any document. 

Thank you for your comments,
Susan Hares 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 5:57 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail];
[e-mail]
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and
COMMENT)

"Susan Hares" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Martin:
> 
> Thank you for the comments on the Yang doctors.  The discussion 
> reference was in the introductory material and not in the descriptions 
> in the YANG text.  Do you also want additional comments in the
introductory section?

No.  The comment was just about the YANG module.

You wrote:

> > Earlier feedback (rtg-dir, ops-dir, yang-doctors) on YANG suggested 
> > taking out the lengthy descriptions regarding logic and history.  If 
> > we are switching the rules for the YANG models, would you please 
> > update the requirements for the YANG models so that shepherds, 
> > rtg-dir, ops-dir, and yang-doctors can have rules for review clearly 
> > spelled out.

My point is that I don't think we are changing the rules for the YANG
modules, which this reply seemed to indicate.



/martin



> 
> Sue Hares
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:30 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and
> COMMENT)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Just a quick comment on the YANG doctor's review.
> 
> "Susan Hares" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Earlier feedback (rtg-dir, ops-dir, yang-doctors) on YANG suggested 
> > taking out the lengthy descriptions regarding logic and history.
> 
> It is very common that the YANG doctor review ask for *more* details 
> in the descriptions.  In general, we want the module to have as much 
> explanatory text as possible.  So was the case for the YD review for 
> this document as well; the YD wrote "The descriptions in all YANG 
> Modules are very short/terse."  That was for the -02 version, and even 
> the -00 version did not contain lengthy descriptions AFAICT.
> 
> 
> /martin
>