Mike Bishop has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-09: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- How will new values of schedule-type be defined? What should a client do if it encounters an unknown value? The text implies that there could be more defined in the future, but describes no forward-compatible handling. In 3.3.4, it's fine to say that this document doesn't prohibit intervals shorter than durations; should this have a note similar to 3.3.3 recommending that users add restrictions if they require that recurrences not overlap? Several comments in 3.3.4 seem like they apply equally to subsequent sections; a reference to those comments would be useful if they're not going to be repeated, or move them to apply more broadly. In 3.3.9, is "bumped" a formally defined YANG term? Would "incremented" be better? With regard to the leap second discussion, shouldn't it be sufficient to specify that :60 is a valid value that MUST be tolerated on receipt and MAY be produced if the implementation represents leap seconds that way? === NITS FOLLOW === - Abstract, "recurrence related" => "recurrence-related" - 3.1, "iCalender like" => "iCalender-like" or "like iCalender" - 3.3.2, "no later the end" => "no later than the end" _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
