Re: [Netconf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: 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-netconf-rfc7895bis/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Just a few minor comments:
> 
> Substantive Comments:
> 
> §2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library
> SHOULD have a revision." Why not MUST? Does it ever make sense not
> to have a revision? What are the consequences?

In YANG, the "revision" is formally optional.  (But for IETF modules
we have stricter rules that require a revsision.)

This bullet is part of the "Objectives" list, so I think we should
rephrase it:

OLD:

   o  revision: Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD
      have a revision.  This is derived from the most recent revision
      statement within the module or submodule.

NEW:

   o  revision: If defined in the YANG module or submodule, the
      revision is derived from the most recent revision statement
      within the module or submodule.

> Editorial Comments:
> 
> §1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence.

I can't find this.  Can you quote the full sentence? 

> §2, list item 1: "Efficient for a client to consume." - sentence fragment.

NEW:

  1.  The information must be efficient for a client to consume.

> -- List item 3: Why is "NOT" in all-caps?

Unclear, now fixed.

> -- List item 6: The first sentence, while not technically a fragment, seems to
> use an understood "you" as the subject. I doubt that is the intent.

NEW:

  6.  It must be possible to use the YANG library by schema mount



/martin