[TICTOC] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10: (with COMMENT)

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tictoc-1588v2-yang-10: 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-tictoc-1588v2-yang/



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

Rich version of this review at:
https://mozphab-ietf.devsvcdev.mozaws.net/D3264


I concur with Ben Campbell's DISCUSS.

COMMENTS
S 1.
>      2008.
>   
>      o  When the IEEE 1588 standard is revised (e.g. the IEEE 1588
>      revision in progress at the time of writing this document), it will
>      add some new optional features to its data sets.  The YANG module
>      of this document MAY be revised and extended to support these new

Nit: this looks like it's more a statement of fact than normative
langauge.



S 1.
>      dedicated YANG module for its profile. The profile's YANG module
>      SHOULD use YANG "import" to import the IEEE 1588-2008 YANG module
>      as its foundation.  Then the profile's YANG module SHOULD use YANG
>      "augment" to add any profile-specific enhancements.
>   
>      o  A product that conforms to a profile standard can also create

Is the "can" in this statement different from the "may" in the
previous bullet.


S 7.
>      create derivative works from this document. Those IEEE forms and
>      mechanisms will be updated as needed for any future IETF YANG
>      modules for IEEE 1588 (The signed forms are held by the IEEE
>      Standards Association department of Risk Management and Licensing.).
>      This will help to make the future transfer of work from IETF to
>      IEEE occur as smoothly as possible.

I don't mean to be overly legal, but why is it that you think that the
named authors consent is what's relevant here as opposed to the IETF,
or everyone who has submitted text?