[Teas] Re: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-22: (with COMMENT)

["Wubo (lana)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gorry,

Thanks for your helpful comments. My apologies for the delayed response; these issues will be resolved in the next version.
Please see inline for the details.

Thanks,
Bo

-----Original Message-----
From: Gorry Fairhurst via Datatracker <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2025 12:15 AM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Gorry Fairhurst's No Objection on draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-22: (with COMMENT)

Gorry Fairhurst has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang-22: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-ietf-network-slice-nbi-yang/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for providing a list of common acronyms!

I have some minor comments from reading the current version:

The text says: “When an IETF Network Slice spans multiple administrative
domains, the
   'test-only' mode relies on the NSC to aggregate and validate
   information across these domains.”
-  Is this the term defined in RFC 9543? (Maybe a specific reference here could
be helpful?).
[Bo Wu] Thanks for comments. To clarify, are you referring to 'spans multiple administrative domains' or the 'test-only' mode? RFC 9543 does require NSC to support cross-domain scenarios but does not mention 'test-only' mode, which is an optional management operation. I can add explicit references to RFC 9543's cross-domain support requirements.

A few NiTs:
/in[I-D.ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang]/  (there is a missing space before the
reference). /but an example could be it is the management interface of the
device./but, for example, this could be the management interface of the device./
[Bo Wu] Thanks for catching these. I have fixed.

- In just a few places you use the word “we”, which might be better reworded to
avoid any suggestion this is a personal view of the editor, e.g., / In this
document, we simply use the term "Network Slice Service" to refer to this
concept./ Thus document uses the term "Network Slice Service" to refer to this
concept./ /In other examples, we may choose to eliminate it.  /In other
examples, this term is eliated./ /We are introducing the "peer-sap-id" in
this example, /This example introduces the "peer-sap-id”/
[Bo Wu] Thanks for the suggestion. I have corrected these as you suggested.

Thanks and best regards,
Bo