Hi Med, Thanks for accepting most of my suggestions. I consider my comments to have been resolved.
Thanks, Donald =============================== Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 7:46 AM <mohamed.boucad...@orange.com> wrote: > Hi Donald, > > Thank you for the review. > > I like the suggestions. I went with almost all of them (except the one > about the ToC) as you can see in the candidate version: > https://boucadair.github.io/attachment-circuit-model/draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit.txt > . > > Cheers, > Med > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : Donald Eastlake <d3e...@gmail.com> > > Envoyé : vendredi 10 mai 2024 23:19 > > À : <rtg-...@ietf.org> (rtg-...@ietf.org) <rtg-...@ietf.org> > > Cc : Routing Directorate <rtg-...@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-opsawg- > > teas-attachment-circuit....@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org; Last Call > > <last-c...@ietf.org> > > Objet : RtgDir Last Call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-teas- > > attachment-circuit-11 > > > > > > Hello, > > > > I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this > > draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or > > routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and > > IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the > > review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more > > information about the Routing Directorate, please see > > https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2 > > Fwiki.ietf.org%2Fen%2Fgroup%2Frtg%2FRtgDir&data=05%7C02%7Cmohamed > > .boucadair%40orange.com%7C5e2654d5909a4f91feaa08dc7136edb5%7C90c7 > > a20af34b40bfbc48b9253b6f5d20%7C0%7C0%7C638509727928172271%7CUnkno > > wn%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1h > > aWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&sdata=DhlZd1ZXwBN4NpT1xyLrHtBMyYD > > K0zA7aUXpJ4cGc%2Fw%3D&reserved=0 > > > > Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing > > ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with > > any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to > > resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. > > > > Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-teas-attachment-circuit-11 > > Reviewer: Donald Eastlake > > Review Date: 2024-05-08 > > IETF LC End Date: date-if-known > > Intended Status: Standards Track > > > > Summary: > > > > This document is basically ready for publication but has nits > > that should be considered prior to publication. > > > > This document specifies a YANG service data model for Attachment > > Circuits and a set of reusable groupings. I am not that deep a > > YANG expert but it seems to be in the right direction. > > > > Comments: > > > > I found the writing in this draft to be of good quality and > > readability. I previously review version -07 and it looks like > > the minor issues I found have been fixed and most, but not all, > > of the nits I found have been fixed. > > > > No major issues found. > > > > Minor Issues: > > > > No minor issues found. > > > > Nits: > > > > The Table of Contents only goes down two levels, to Sections > > whose number is of the form n.m. But some sections in Sections 5 > > are five levels deep (n.m.o.p.q). The ToC does not need to go all > > the way to level 5, but I think it should be extended to at least > > level 3. > > > > Section 1.1, next to last paragraph: there is no reason to cite > > that the various identifiers used are ones intended for examples. > > Suggest deleting this paragraph. > > > > Section 2: I suggest adding entries for PE, CE, and NF. > > > > Section 5.2 under 'oper-status': "it is recommended to consider > > both administrative and operational service status values in > > conjunction." > > -> "considering administration and operational service status > > values > > together is recommended." > > > > Section 5.2.2.2: "abovementioned" -> "above mentioned" > > > > Section 7: two extra spaces that should be deleted: > > "nacm:default-deny- write" > > key- string > > > > Section A.11.1, first paragraph: "permits to manage connectivity > > requirements" -> "permits managing connectivity requirements" > > > > A.11.3, fourth bullet point: "permits to handle compute failures" > > -> "permits handling compute failures" > > > > Suggest replacing the two occurrences of "leverages" with "uses". > > > > All references to RFC 5798 should be replaced by references to > > RFC 9568. > > > > The nits checker finds 56 lines too long but that is probably due > > to non-ASCII characters, > > > > Thanks, > > Donald > > =============================== > > Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) > > 2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA d3e...@gmail.com > > ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ > Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations > confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc > pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez > recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler > a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages > electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, > Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou > falsifie. Merci. > > This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged > information that may be protected by law; > they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. > If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and > delete this message and its attachments. > As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been > modified, changed or falsified. > Thank you. > >
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list -- opsawg@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to opsawg-le...@ietf.org
