Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10: 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-opsawg-service-assurance-yang/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- # GEN AD review of draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-yang-10 CC @larseggert Thanks to Dan Romascanu for the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) review (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/PUK6ex0SQtj7-di4O2RM31mul2A). ## Comments ### Boilerplate This document uses the RFC2119 keywords "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD NOT", "SHALL", "MAY", "REQUIRED", "RECOMMENDED", "OPTIONAL", "SHOULD", "MUST NOT", "NOT RECOMMENDED", and "MUST", but does not contain the recommended RFC8174 boilerplate. (It refers to BCP 13 and not BCP 14...) ### DOWNREFs DOWNREF `[I-D.ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture]` from this Proposed Standard to Informational `draft-ietf-opsawg-service-assurance-architecture`. (For IESG discussion. It seems this DOWNREF was not mentioned in the Last Call and also seems to not appear in the DOWNREF registry.) ## Nits All comments below are about very minor potential issues that you may choose to address in some way - or ignore - as you see fit. Some were flagged by automated tools (via https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool), so there will likely be some false positives. There is no need to let me know what you did with these suggestions. ### Outdated references Reference `[RFC7895]` to `RFC7895`, which was obsoleted by `RFC8525` (this may be on purpose). ### Grammar/style #### Section 3.2, paragraph 29 ``` . The subservices hierarchically organised by dependencies constitute an ass ^^^^^^^^^ ``` Do not mix variants of the same word ("organise" and "organize") within a single text. #### Section 3.3, paragraph 16 ``` ption "Date and time at which the symptoms history starts for this subservic ^^^^^^^^ ``` An apostrophe may be missing. #### Section 3.3, paragraph 18 ``` iption "Container for the list of agents’s symptoms"; list agent { key "id"; ^^^^^^^^ ``` Did you mean "agent's" or "agents'"? #### Section 3.3, paragraph 18 ``` e some guidelines in order to build theses extensions. The mechanism to add a ^^^^^^ ``` Did you mean "these"? #### Section 3.3, paragraph 18 ``` The parameters should be defined in an container named "parameters" augmenti ^^ ``` Use "a" instead of "an" if the following word doesn't start with a vowel sound, e.g. "a sentence", "a university". #### Section 6.1, paragraph 3 ``` be given access to monitor their services status (e.g. via model-driven tel ^^^^^^^^ ``` An apostrophe may be missing. ## Notes This review is in the ["IETF Comments" Markdown format][ICMF], You can use the [`ietf-comments` tool][ICT] to automatically convert this review into individual GitHub issues. Review generated by the [`ietf-reviewtool`][IRT]. [ICMF]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments/blob/main/format.md [ICT]: https://github.com/mnot/ietf-comments [IRT]: https://github.com/larseggert/ietf-reviewtool _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
