[TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10
Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz> Thu, 25 October 2018 06:50 UTC
Return-Path: <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
X-Original-To: tictoc@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tictoc@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B8112D7EA; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:50:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang.all@ietf.org, tictoc@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.87.1
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <154045022283.6867.1264697701888740594@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 23:50:22 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tictoc/ayuo5-wZMXE4wVvnhBSlUalJxOM>
Subject: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10
X-BeenThere: tictoc@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Timing over IP Connection and Transfer of Clock BOF <tictoc.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tictoc/>
List-Post: <mailto:tictoc@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc>, <mailto:tictoc-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 06:50:23 -0000
Reviewer: Radek Krejčí Review result: Ready with Nits This is my YANG-doctor review of draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10. I have reviewed it mainly from the YANG perspective, since I'm not familiar with IEEE 1588. The draft as well as the YANG module ietf-ptp@2018-09-10 are in a good shape and ready to publish. I have only 2, say, editorial notes. 1) email of Rodney Cummings in the module's contact statement misses (in contrast to emails of other authors) starting ('<') and ending ('>') tags. 2) I don't see any reason for the following paragraph in the appendix A3: Under the assumptions of section A.1, the first IEEE 1588 YANG module prefix can be the same as the last IETF 1588 YANG module prefix (i.e. "ptp"), since the nodes within both YANG modules are compatible. Since the module's prefix is used only locally, it may change when the module is updated (RFC 7950, sec. 11). So the mentioned paragraph seems pointless to me (and therefore confusing for readers).
- [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-t… Radek Krejčí
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Radek Krejčí
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Rodney Cummings
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Radek Krejčí
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Alex Campbell
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Jiangyuanlong
- Re: [TICTOC] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ie… Radek Krejčí