Hi Tom, We published the new version a while back, so just wondering whether you got a chance to review the changes? Please kindly let us know if you have other comments.
Thanks, Yingzhen On Jan 5, 2021, at 10:02 AM, Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen...@futurewei.com<mailto:yingzhen...@futurewei.com>> wrote: Hi Tom, Thank you for your review and comments. We’ll publish a new version to address your comments within a couple of days. Thanks, Yingzhen On Jan 5, 2021, at 9:04 AM, tom petch <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: From: Christian Hopps Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2021 16:54 > On Jan 5, 2021, at 11:47 AM, tom petch > <ie...@btconnect.com<mailto:ie...@btconnect.com>> wrote: > > From: Lsr <lsr-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:lsr-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of > Christian Hopps <cho...@chopps.org<mailto:cho...@chopps.org>> > Sent: 05 January 2021 09:19 > > This begins a 2 week WG adoption call for the following draft: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1/<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-acee-lsr-isis-yang-augmentation-v1%2F&data=04%7C01%7Cyingzhen.qu%40futurewei.com%7C2a746233cc21444a04b608d8b1a4393e%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637454666271945908%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=P6mbsiz6uADWt%2FafxPcjh6ADttVUFNycty982MKy3AM%3D&reserved=0> > > Please indicate your support or objection by January 19th, 2021. > > <tp> > > Object, strongly. > > In an earlier version, there was one YANG module and the accompanying text > related to that module. > > A second YANG module has been dropped into the I-D while the text is > untouched. Thus > the Abstract is wrong > the Introduction is wrong > IANA Considerations are wrong > and so on. > > This second module lacks references while introducing technical objects such > as udabm-length or r-flag with no indication where in the 68 documents > credited to the LSR WG (plus those of ISO) information may be found to judge > whether or not the YANG is suitable. > > The security considerations is out-of-date, the references do not reflect RFC > published last year, YANG import lack references, the key references are > listed as Informative. > > And, contrary to the announcement, the intended status of the I-D is > Informational. > > I am surprised that anyone should consider this to be in a state fit for > adoption! Adoption just means the WG is willing to take on the work. It does not imply that the work is done or even close to being done. That said thanks for pointing out work that needs to be done prior to considering a WGLC on this document. :) <tp> Chris, as you doubtless realise, I am saying that this version is not ready for adoption. Intended status Informational? That to me is a show-stopper (even if you do not consider the misleading Abstract and so on to be - which I do!) Tom Petch Thanks, Chris. > > Tom Petch > > > Authors, please respond to the list indicating whether you are aware of any > IPR that applies to this draft. > > Thanks, > Chris. > _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr _______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org<mailto:Lsr@ietf.org> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
_______________________________________________ Lsr mailing list Lsr@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr
