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

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Francesca,

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

On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 9:45 PM Francesca Palombini via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Francesca Palombini 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 on this document.
>
> I have a simple-to-solve DISCUSS point, and some non blocking comments.
>
> Francesca
>
>
> 1. -----
>
>         leaf clock-precision {
>           type int8;
>           units "Hz";
>
> FP: I believe the units should be seconds here.
>
>
Dhruv: The Hz was incorrect. BTW I am using a new typedef log2seconds now
(as per Ben's DISCUSS).



>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 2. -----
>
>   typedef ntp-date-and-time {
>     type union {
>       type yang:date-and-time;
>       type uint8;
>     }
>     description
>       "Follows the normal date-and-time format when valid value
>        exist, otherwise allows for setting special value such as
>        zero.";
>
> FP: I'd rather the document avoided the term "normal", which could be just
> removed. Also, could a 'reference' be added, pointing to RFC 6991?
>
>
Dhruv: Agreed and updated.



> 3. -----
>
>         "The association was configured or dynamic
>          which result in clock synchronization.";
>
> FP: This sentence doesn't parse correctly for me. Is there any text
> missing? Or
> maybe a wrong copy paste?
>
>
Dhruv: Updated to - "Indicates if the association (that resulted in the
clock synchronization) is explicitly configured."



> 4. -----
>
>       description
>         "Configuration to control access to NTP service
>          by using NTP access-group feature.
>          The access-mode identifies how the acl is
>          applied with NTP.";
>
> FP: (here and other places) please make sure the capitalization of ACL is
> consistent in the descriptions and in the text of the doc.
>
>
> Dhruv: Ack.

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