Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09: (with COMMENT)

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F233126C83; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:20:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LiyQtRwa7yaE; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:20:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1DA0124F57; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 15:20:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2772; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1518045604; x=1519255204; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=obR4o+3WPXpkBqMO4il88F+O24lP3gc/vuEVzR60At8=; b=agmD8OkGwwiQ1bpq+cHQciAxEqGlq9w2X0+ls38oDaEYx+PWT+lOP3Xd pgqhihuvoFM060ST1iV+whd9JbtvHFYSOuvuCFd/tpB2/b9g+HpL30AwJ E+iDDJwLrveI9BKGlj4Toz6mHcf7V1A0aI45hfhhnipSOYuiwFiIfXSsx g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0A6AgCDiHta/5pdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNRZnAoCoNbmEqBW5gOggMKGA2FFgIagk9XFQECAQEBAQEBAms?= =?us-ascii?q?ohSQCBAEBIRE6CxACAQgaAiYCAgIlCxUQAgQBDQWKNRCxKoIniHeCCgEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQ+DZoIVgz8pDIJ5gy8BAQEBAQGBOgESAQeDLzG?= =?us-ascii?q?CNAWKapk/CQKIHI1dgh6GJ4t5jXqJYwIRGQGBOwE1I2BXEQhwFRkkKgGCG4MKg?= =?us-ascii?q?W14AYtLgSWBFwEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,476,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="67254883"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Feb 2018 23:20:03 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (xch-rtp-010.cisco.com [64.101.220.150]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w17NK2R1025209 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 7 Feb 2018 23:20:03 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-010.cisco.com (64.101.220.150) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:20:02 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 18:20:01 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model@ietf.org>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>, "yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com" <yingzhen.ietf@gmail.com>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Topic: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHToGLsKcDo849SYkiFvfEil4CHD6OZk5SA
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2018 23:20:01 +0000
Message-ID: <4362D6D2-5790-4942-8F46-FCA82341FE21@cisco.com>
References: <151804247138.17167.1607920556154773860.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <151804247138.17167.1607920556154773860.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.195]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <2B7F71D9DA0316409267819083F0C5E6@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtgwg/v_l5hZ5X7yw7Tj1dAirbGi8kokI>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 23:20:06 -0000

Hi Benoit, 

´╗┐On 2/7/18, 5:28 PM, "rtgwg on behalf of Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <rtgwg-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of bclaise@cisco.com>; wrote:

    Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model-09: No Objection
    
    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 IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    
    
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-ni-model/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Same remark as in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ballot/#benoit-claise
    The title should be: "YANG module for network instance"

Ok -  Although I used "YANG Model for Network Instances". 
    
    This document is NMDA compliant. I should be clearly mentioned. Like in the RFC7223bis abstract.

Well, it is not a BIS document and at some point all models will be NDMA compliant. However, I have added it. Note that I-D references should not be in the abstract - I guess this will get updated during RFC Edit? 
    
    No need to repeat the tree-diagram reference in:
    
       The NI model can be represented using the tree format defined in
       [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams] as:

I have removed the second reference. 
    
    
    Like for the LNE YANG module, you still have the -state in the example.

Fixed. 

Thanks,
Acee 
    
    
    _______________________________________________
    rtgwg mailing list
    rtgwg@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg