Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Substantive: §3.3, 4th paragraph: The MUST NOT seems like a statement of fact -- if no schema is mounted, it doesn't seem possible for it to include anything. §5, last paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? Would it ever make sense to violate this? §9: The model includes RFC 2119 boilerplate, but the document itself uses the newer RFC 8174 boilerplate. Is it normal to include the normative keyword boilerplate in the model? If so, it should probably match that of the containing document. Editorial: §1, list item 2: "... and is stable as YANG library information of the server." Assuming you mean specific YANG library information rather than the general concept, there is a missing article before "YANG". (This pattern repeats a few time throughout the document.) _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
