Ballot for draft-ietf-ccamp-otn-topo-yang
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 18 and is now closed.
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMNETs
I am not a YANG expert (or even a newbie YANG person), so I'm relying on the YANG Dr. and Mahesh's comments/discuss. I also agree with Paul W's comments (IANA registry and contributor information).
some nits:
Registrant Contact: The IESG
Should that not be The IETF ?
The Contributors section has affiliation and email addresses. We normally do not add affiliations to Acknowledgements.
Is there a specific reason for these?
Thank you to Stewart Bryant for the GENART review.
Doh! I had coped and pasted my ballot earlier this week, but forgotten to click "Save & send mail". Much thanks to Dan Romascanu for the OpsDir review, it was helpful. W
Thanks for the work done in this document. The topic is very specific and contains mainly a long YANG module, i.e., my review has focused on the non-YANG parts as I am trusting the OPS AD and YANG doctors for the YANG part. Talking about YANG, I am afraid that this I-D exhibits an issue of doing 'delta' model by augmenting an existing one: the tree view is too long and is mostly useless. Nothing that can be addressed in this I-D of course. Comments: In section 1, is "server-layer network" actually the usual "underlay"? If so, why not using the more common IETF terminology. Else, it is worth defining it. Also, s/captures topology related information/captures topology-related information/ ? `Optical Transport Networks (OTN)` the OTN acronym is expanded twice in this section ;-)