Re: [netmod] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10

Martin Bjorklund <> Fri, 29 June 2018 19:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40683130E85; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Im4LHuACavKs; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72057130E71; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:39:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 355E81AE02F0; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 21:39:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 21:39:30 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <>
From: Martin Bjorklund <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 19:39:36 -0000


Thank you for this review, comments inline.

Mehmet Ersue <>; wrote:
> Reviewer: Mehmet Ersue
> Review result: Has Nits
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
> the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
> in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> Intended status: Standards Track
> Current IESG state: Waiting for Writeup
> IANA review state: Not OK / Expert review needed (see
> Summary:
> The document defines a mechanism to add the schema trees defined by a set of
> YANG modules onto a mount point defined in the schema tree in some YANG modules.
> I think the document is well-written and can be published after addressing last
> issues indicated by different reviews.
> A few nits below:
> - In 2.  Terminology and Notation
> for both "system-controlled interface" and "YANG library checksum":
> s/are not/is not/

Fixed, thanks.

> - In 2.1.  Glossary of New Terms
> As there are indeed terms which are not new I would suggest to change the
> section title to: "Glossary of Used Terms". One can even merge section 2 and
> section 2.1.

Ok.  I suggest we remove 2.1 and instead add:

   The following additional terms are used within this document:

> - As one of the commenters indicated, the words "schema mount" are often used
> casually and without an article. Though what the author means is "the schema
> mount mechanism" which is specifically defined in this document.

In the Introduction, the document says:

  This document introduces a new mechanism, denoted as schema
  mount, that allows for mounting one data model [...]

so I wonder if the solution to both these problem is to define "schema
mount" as a term in 2.1, instead of replacing "schema mount" with "the
schema mount mechanism" in the whole document?