Carl Moberg <[email protected]> wrote: > I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's > ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the > IESG. These
Thank you!
> A couple of nits:
> - The modules use the 'cwt' acronym in their names, but that acronym is
> only spelled out in the Normative References section. Suggest spelling
> it out in the description field in the modules and in the draft
> itself.
We changed it to constrained in a version which is probably not yet
published, because it was only change.
> - Both modules have the same top-level description. Suggest revising
> the wording to describe the
> specific content of each module such that they are unique.
> I would suggest
> running both modules through 'pyang -f yang' for consistent
> formatting. The diffs are related to whitespace, quotations and
> comments (including a modename
> in each module)
Generally, my experience is that one has to get the wrapping of the YANG
module "short" enough so that it does not exceed the .txt format output
when embedded in the RFC. Does pyang -f yang help here?
> - Sections 6.2.1. and 6.3.1. both provide YANG tree diagrams of
> the groupings defined. These groupings are defined in RFC8366 and only
> one of the leafs are defined in the local document. It might be worth
> pointing this fact out for clarity.
okay, I'll add a note about that.
https://github.com/anima-wg/constrained-voucher/commit/6d274f13e3c553efc714c0f06c195f924ad880ff
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
