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

["Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <[e-mail]>]

Thank you, Dhruv, for your reply and action. About the last point (table 2 with all references), unusual but smart ;-)

Regards,

-éric

From: Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>
Date: Thursday, 9 December 2021 at 18:00
To: Eric Vyncke <[e-mail]>
Cc: The IESG <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>, NTP WG <[e-mail]>, Dieter Sibold <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-ntp-yang-data-model-15: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

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]<mailto:[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