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

Martin:

I apologize if my response seem to indicate the descriptions in the YANG
modules or the YANG module overall description.  My response was intended to
query if there were now rules on what needed to be in the introductory
material (non-YANG) in the RFC prior to the YANG module.  

AFAIK, the only formal definition for this portion of the YANG RFCs is
regarding the Yang diagram RFC. 
Therefore, I was asking Ignas to provide clarity on his DISCUSS to determine
references for his expectations for the introductory material.  A DISCUSS
should have some reference to a YANG web page, or an RFC or some written
context to help the shepherd.   As a shepherd unless I have a reference it
is hard to handle conflicting reviews (shorten the introduction vs. add the
introduction). 

If you know of such a web page or RFC, I would appreciate a reference. 

Thank you,
Susan Hares

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin Bjorklund
Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 5:57 PM
To: shares@ndzh.com
Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com; i2rs@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org;
i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Ignas Bagdonas' Discuss on
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and
COMMENT)

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> 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:mbj@tail-f.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:30 PM
> To: shares@ndzh.com
> Cc: ibagdona@gmail.com; iesg@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-dc-fabric-network-topology@ietf.org;
> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
> 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" <shares@ndzh.com> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs