[netmod] Re: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16

[Jürgen Schönwälder <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review. I like the proposal to merge the text currently
found in the appendix into the introduction (and to also point out
that Section 2 provides an overview of all types).

I am less sure a detailed discussion why specific types were added is
useful. At the end it is the NETMOD working group managing this
document. Perhaps I should add a statement like "Additional type
definitions may be added in the future by submitting proposals to the
NETMOD working group." to clarify that there is a process to propose
new types. And this may also serve as a hint that detailed discussions
can be found in the working group archives.

/js

On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 08:14:11AM -0700, Giuseppe Fioccola via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Giuseppe Fioccola
> Review result: Has Nits
> 
> This document is clear for its scope. It simply adds new type definitions to
> the "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" YANG modules and obsoletes RFC 6991.
> 
> The new types defined in the YANG modules are quite understandable, but I would
> suggest to add some explanation, maybe in section 2, about the motivations
> behind the addition of these new types (for example, the new date/time related
> types compared to the date-and-time type already defined in RFC 6021).
> 
> I noticed that there are two appendixes about the changes from RFC 6991 and
> from RFC 6021, which only refer to section 3 and section 4. I think it is
> useful to add a reference also to section 2, since the tables there show the
> new types with respect to RFC 6991 and RFC 6021. Additionally, you can consider
> to move these appendixes as subsections of section 1.
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jürgen Schönwälder              Constructor University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany