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

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

"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
>