Re: [mpls] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: (with COMMENT)

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Tarek.

Barry

On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:00 AM Tarek Saad <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Barry for your thorough review and comments. We have posted rev -16 (https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-16)  of the document and have addressed all your comments.
> Please see inline for responses… [TS]
>
> On 9/3/20, 11:18 PM, "Barry Leiba via Datatracker" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>
>
>     Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang-15: 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://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VoJLrKKmaM1UHV_t0IgMn7LUqo-Bad0ISmXXYQJ3wv77doalWhBZ-vw5DGJFsQ$
>     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>     https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mpls-base-yang/__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!VoJLrKKmaM1UHV_t0IgMn7LUqo-Bad0ISmXXYQJ3wv77doalWhBZ-vyojA8JRg$
>
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     The document sometimes says “YANG model” and sometimes “YANG module”.  It
>     should use the correct term and be consistent, no?
> [TS]: thanks, we acted on this comment and normalized use of YANG data model and YANG module.
>
>     I note that there is BCP 14 boilerplate here but no BCP 14 key words in the
>     document.  The shepherd writeup notes that also and says that the shepherd
>     wanted to discuss this with the authors... but there is no resolution to that.
>     Did the shepherd discuss it with the authors?  Should some “must”s become
>     “MUST”s?  Or should the boilerplate and references be removed?
> [TS]: we removed BCP 14 boilerplate.
>
>     — Section 1 —
>
>        The MPLS base model also defines a new instance of the generic RIB
>        model as defined in {!RFC8349}} to store native MPLS routes.
>
>     What is the notation around RFC8349?  Does it mean something, or is it a markup
>     artifact that needs to be fixed during editing?
> [TS]: this is markup that needed fixing. Fixed now.
>
> Regards,
> Tarek
>
>
>
>
>
> Juniper Business Use Only