Re: [Lsr] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-27: (with COMMENT)

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Mahesh

Indeed, this was my question: why including BCP14 template when they are not used ? 😊

Acee, the comment about a less trivial example was just a suggestion, feel free to ignore it

Regards

-éric

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
Date: Tuesday, 30 January 2024 at 02:52
To: Acee Lindem <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, lsr-chairs <[e-mail]>, lsr <[e-mail]>, Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>, Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-27: (with COMMENT)

Hi Acee,


On Jan 29, 2024, at 6:33 AM, Acee Lindem <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi Éric,

Thanks for the review - see inline.


On Jan 29, 2024, at 05:19, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-27: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the work done in this document.

Like id-nits, I wonder why BCP14 template is used in the main body (in addition
to its occurence in the YANG module itself) as there are occurence of normative
language neither in the main body nor in the YANG module. Please consider
removing the 2 occurence of the BCP 14 template.

This is normal for YANG model documents. I’d like to hear from OPS ADs on this if it is changing.

The point Eric is bringing up is that you are not using any of the key words from BCP 14 like MUST, MUST NOT etc. Why do you need the include the template in that case.

Cheers.







Should there be a less trivial example ?

Operational state examples are not easy to produce without access to implementations. I’ve got it on my list of things to do to look at the available tools but it isn’t going to happen for this document.

Thanks,
Acee









Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>