Re: [Lsr] More responses required [Re: WG adoption call for draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1-03]

Hi Chris,

I support adoption.

But I found the use of "version 1" in the title a bit weird. Every
time we add new features, we would have to name the I-Ds as version
2,3..; IMHO it would be distracting. Should we just name the features
instead, something like - "IS-IS YANG Model Augmentations for Minimum
Remaining Lifetime and Application-Specific Link Attributes"?

Also, for Application-Specific Link Attributes, it would be a good
idea to state clearly that this YANG model is state-only and
configurations are likely to be part of some application-specific YANG
models perhaps?

Thanks!
Dhruv

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 6:43 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks, so far we've received only a single feedback on adopting this document, can we get a few more responses form the WG?
>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
> > On Jan 5, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> wrote:
> >
> > Signed PGP part
> > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft:
> >
> >  https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/
> >
> > Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021.
> >
> > Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any IPR that applies to this draft.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Chris.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Lsr mailing list
> Lsr@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr