Hi Acee, > On Apr 1, 2025, at 2:40 PM, Acee Lindem <acee.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > >> On Apr 1, 2025, at 5:14 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker >> <nore...@ietf.org> wrote: >> >> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-ospf-sr-yang-37: 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-ospf-sr-yang/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Section 1, paragraph 0 >>> This document defines a YANG data model [RFC7950] that can be used to >>> manage OSPFv2 extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8665] and OSPFv3 >>> extensions for Segment Routing [RFC8666] for the MPLS data plane. It >>> is an augmentation to the OSPF YANG data model [RFC9129]. >> >> This is a similar comment to the YANG module for SR on ISIS. There seems to >> be >> some confusion on the use of the terms "YANG module" and "YANG data model" in >> this document. A "YANG data model" refers to a collection of YANG modules and >> submodules that together define a structured representation configuration, >> operational data, notifications, and RPCs for a given system or protocol, >> while >> a "YANG module" refers to a specific YANG file (.yang) defining a set of >> nodes >> (container, list, leaf, etc.) that represent configuration or state data. >> Moreover, a YANG module can be independent and augment other modules. >> >> Based on that definition, what you seem to be defining is a YANG module more >> than a YANG data model. Can that be reflected consistently in this document? > > I'll fix this.
I was referring to this comment which you agreed to fix, not just in this document but presumably in the ISIS document as well. Looking at the -41 version of the document, I did not see any changes to reflect this change, unless I am missing something. Thanks. Mahesh Jethanandani mjethanand...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list -- lsr@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to lsr-le...@ietf.org
