Re: [Lsr] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26: (with COMMENT)

[Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]>]

Hi Acee,

> On Aug 21, 2019, at 1:01 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Alissa,
> 
> On 8/21/19, 9:29 AM, "Alissa Cooper via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>    Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>    draft-ietf-ospf-yang-26: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
>    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ospf-yang/
> 
> 
> 
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>    COMMENT:
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>    Per the Gen-ART review, I think 2.3 may be a little clearer if it were to say
>    "The field 'version' is used to indicate the OSPF LSA version and is mandatory."
> 
> This change has already been made in response to the Gen-ART review.

My specific suggestion was to include “LSA” after “OSPF” since that seemed to be the source of the confusion.

Best,
Alissa

> 
> 2.3.  OSPFv2 and OSPFv3
> 
>   The data model defined herein supports both OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
> 
>   The field 'version' is used to indicate the OSPF version and is
>   mandatory.  Based on the configured version, the data model varies to
>   accommodate the differences between OSPFv2 and OSPFv3.
> 
> Thanks,
> Acee
> 
>    I did not review this entire document but I'm balloting based on the Gen-ART
>    review.
> 
> 
> 
>