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

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thank you for this review, comments inline.

Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]> 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
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/history/)
> 
> 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?


/martin