Esko Dijk <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Sheng & chairs,
> I'll do a WGLC review and propose some editorial fixes in a PR.
> These questions (for the WG) came up so far:
> 1. The new text for the extension mechanism mentions: "This document also
> introduces an experimental mechanism to support future extensions without
> requiring the YANG to be replaced."
> Can we call this experimental in a standards track document? Shouldn't
we
> rather avoid such wording, or else, split out the experimental feature
into
> an "Experimental" track RFC? I'm ok to just avoid using the word which
seems
> the best approach.
Yeah, but how would you add that back in?
An extension to manage the extension mechanism?
> 2. Who handles common editorial fixes - the WG now, or the WG after WGLC,
or
> the RFC editor later? This fixing includes the common things like
consistent
> capitalization, using same term for same thing, etc.
> In other words should I flag such issues now or leave most of the
obvious
> fixes (which doesn't change semantics) for later?
RPC.
> 3. Two labels " WARNING, obsolete definitions" can be found in the
document -
> is this intentionally included i.e. are the SIDs really obsolete, or can
we
> just remove these warnings (as an editorial fix)? Just wanted to
> double-check this so that people are not reviewing obsolete items
I'm struggling with that. it's pyang output.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | IoT architect [
] [email protected] http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
