search

ietf-ccamp-wg / ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing

Repository for draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing
0 stars 2 forks source link

Tom Petch's comment on the draft text in general #36

Closed aguoietf closed 2 years ago

aguoietf commented 2 years ago

mail thread

There are good reasons why there is a limit of five authors on the front page of an RFC so when I see in excess of twice that number, I know what to expect:-(

IANA Considerations must be as per YANG Guidelines; no IANA Considerations, no YANG modules.

Security Considerations must be as per YANG Guidelines.

Line length is limited in RFC; this limit is exceeded in the YANG modules

YANG import must be a Normative Reference in the I-D.

TLP is out of date in the YANG module

YANG references must also be I-D references e,g GSMA NS Template (and they have to be accessible)

No RF8174 boiler plate; are those lower case 'must' really lower case?

Abbreviations need expanding on first use in both text and YANG module

The way my mind works is that if these straightforward non-technical matters are not right then is there any point in looking at the technical ones? YMMV!

Tom Petch

aguoietf commented 2 years ago

Add security consideration template to the model with only the generic part of the statement.

aguoietf commented 2 years ago

Updates included in draft-ietf-ccamp-yang-otn-slicing-01