Re: [netconf] Shepherd's comments on draft-ietf-netconf-crypto-types

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Thank you Mahesh for your comments.

See below for responses.

K.



> On Dec 4, 2022, at 10:40 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Kent,
> 
> The YANG Data Types and Grouping for Crypto Types draft is short, well written, and easy to understand. Thanks for including plenty of examples on how to use the model.
> 
> There are however a few minor comments that would nice to address before forwarding the document for AD review.

Thanks again.


> Section 1.1 - Relation to other RFCs
> 
> Now that the set of modules and drafts in the “client-server” suite of drafts is known, can the language in this section be updated to reflect it. Specifically, can the second paragraph be removed or replaced because you list the drafts (if not the modules themselves) in the dependency graph.

Removed, and cleaned-up the language in the next paragraph.   Now reads:

    This document presents one or more YANG modules [RFC7950]
    that are part of a collection of RFCs that work together
    to, ultimately, enable the configuration of both the clients
    and servers of both the NETCONF [RFC6241] and
    RESTCONF [RFC8040] protocols.

    The normative dependency relationship between the various RFCs 
    in this collection is presented in the below diagram. The labels
    in the diagram represent the primary purpose provided by each
    RFC.  Hyperlinks to each RFC are provided below the diagram.

This change will effect all in the suite of drafts.


> Section 2.1.1 Features
> 
> This is more of a nit, and would not mind if the comment is ignored. Can we remove the leading | (pipe symbol) in front of the sentence - “The diagram above uses syntax …”. The same is true for other “tree diagrams” that follow RFC 8340 syntax. I do understand that other documents in the cluster follow that format, but it is not clear what the pipe symbols mean or why the text needs to be formatted differently from the rest of the text in the document. 

This is how the <aside> element, in the xml2rfc file, renders.  I wish that it rendered as a box but, alas, such is not the case.  In any case, Juergen made the same comment before, so it seems pretty annoying, so I removed all of them, in the entire suite of drafts.



> Section 2.1.1 Identities
> 
> s/format that key data/format for key data/

Fixed.


> Section 2.1.4.* Groupings
> 
> Most of the grouping display an abridged and a full tree diagram. But the difference between them are a few extra lines. If the diagrams were truly different in size, i.e., the extra number of lines in the full tree diagram was more the size of the abridged tree diagram, I could have understood displaying both of them. Are the two diagrams really necessary in every section?

Not necessary.  I just removed the "expanded" diagrams.  Now this draft is more like others in the suite of drafts


Thanks again,
Kent // author