Re: [Ntp] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

Firstly let me apologize for this very late reply. Secondly thanks for your
review. I was finally able to make all the changes.

On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 3:45 PM Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-15: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you for the work put into this document.
>
> Special thanks for Dieter Sibold as the document shepherd write-up includes
> text about the WG consensus.
>
> Please find below one blocking DISCUSS point (but really trivial and easy
> to
> address), some non-blocking COMMENT points (but replies would be
> appreciated),
> and some nits.
>
> I hope that this helps to improve the document,
>
> Regards,
>
> -éric
>
> -- Section 13.1 --
> As RFC 7317 is imported by the YANG module, it must be a normative
> reference.
>
>
Dhruv: Agreed, done!



>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Should the NTP version(s) be mentioned in the abstract ?
>
>
Dhruv: Okay. It now says - "This document defines a YANG data model for
Network Time Protocol (NTP) version 4 implementations. It can also be used
to configure version 3.



> -- Section 1 --
> The text appears to indicate that the associations can be configured while
> the
> tree diagram indicateds tha associations are read-only. Should the
> associations
> text moved to the section 1.1 (i.e., operational states) ?
>
>
Dhruv: I have done some rewording to make it clear.



> -- Section 1.5 --
> Using a table for listing references is unusual. Is there a reason why this
> form is used ?
>
>
Dhruv: It is a good practice to make sure we track all the references used
in YANG so that the XML2RFC can throw an error if the reference is not
included in the RFC.



> -- Section 8 --
> Should there be more constraints on "ntp-version" ? I.e., a minimum of 3 ?
>
> Dhruv: Added.

Thanks!
Dhruv

Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-15&url2=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-16.txt
Working Copy:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dhruvdhody/ietf/master/draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-16.txt

Consolidated Review Status:
https://notes.ietf.org/draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model