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

[Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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://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-mpls-base-yang/



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

The document sometimes says “YANG model” and sometimes “YANG module”.  It
should use the correct term and be consistent, no?

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?

— 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?