Hi Éric, Thanks for the review - see inline.
> On Jan 29, 2024, at 05:19, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang-27: 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-lsr-ospfv3-extended-lsa-yang/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thanks for the work done in this document. > > Like id-nits, I wonder why BCP14 template is used in the main body (in > addition > to its occurence in the YANG module itself) as there are occurence of > normative > language neither in the main body nor in the YANG module. Please consider > removing the 2 occurence of the BCP 14 template. This is normal for YANG model documents. I’d like to hear from OPS ADs on this if it is changing. > > Should there be a less trivial example ? Operational state examples are not easy to produce without access to implementations. I’ve got it on my list of things to do to look at the available tools but it isn’t going to happen for this document. Thanks, Acee > > > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
