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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 01:02 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A2D130DEB; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:02:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id fyAFjahS9QCV; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:02:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28871130DDC; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:02:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9B12Suo029394 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:02:33 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org, netconf-chairs@ietf.org
References: <153921956365.5895.2867315554651220798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Message-ID: <950a89a7-3626-efc6-cb36-37ca6b1b9396@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:02:23 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <153921956365.5895.2867315554651220798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/h-67CkkiXOnOAgPywzYMsIITchk>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:02:40 -0000

On 10/10/18 7:59 PM, Adam Roach wrote:
>
> §8.2:
>
>>   [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
>>              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
>>              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
> Since this document is required to understand the syntax used in the tree
> diagrams used by this document, it should be normative rather than informative.
>
>

I just realized that my comment above is unreadably ambiguous. What I 
meant to say was:

Since RFC 8340 is required to understand the syntax used in the tree 
diagrams
in draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis, RFC 8340 should be normative rather
than informative.


/a