Hi, Not a full WGLC review, but one comment that I have on this draft (which partly picks up a comment that Joe mentioned earlier regarding "yid-version").
I think that we should probably avoid using the term "yid-version" because "yid" can be regarded as a racial slur, perhaps "file-format-version" would be safer? But I also agree with Joe that I think that it would be better to tie this back to the revision-date of the YANG module rather than inventing another versioning scheme. Ideally, this would be a YANG Semver revision-label, but we don't want this draft to get delayed behind the versioning work. Subject to the outcome of the (so far remarkably quiet) YANG versioning drafts adoption call, perhaps this leaf could instead be defined as a string, which can only currently take the value "1.0.0", thus allowing it to be extended to adopt YANG revision labels and semver in future? Thanks, Rob > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen > Sent: 07 January 2020 12:41 > To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org> > Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file- > format-06 > > > This begins a two-week Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on draft-ietf- > netmod-yang-instance-file-format-06. The WGLC ends on Jan 21. Please > send your comments to the working group mailing list. > > Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is > ready for publication", are welcome! This is useful and important, even > from authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at > this time. > > Thank you, > NETMOD Chairs > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
