Skip to main content

IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-15
review-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-15-opsdir-lc-chen-2025-06-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 15)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2025-06-23
Requested 2025-06-13
Requested by Mohamed Boucadair
Authors Sergio Belotti , Italo Busi , Dieter Beller , Esther Le Rouzic , Aihua Guo
I-D last updated 2025-07-10 (Latest revision 2025-06-17)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -04 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Rtgdir IETF Last Call review of -11 by Gyan Mishra (diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -13 by Joe Clarke (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -15 by Thomas Fossati
Opsdir IETF Last Call review of -15 by Ran Chen
Assignment Reviewer Ran Chen
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis by Ops Directorate Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/nnl6nywb00EyYpHk_WuWMzX_TyI
Reviewed revision 15
Result Has nits
Completed 2025-06-26
review-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-15-opsdir-lc-chen-2025-06-26-00
I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational Directorate's ongoing
effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments
were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of IETF
drafts. Comments that are not addressed during the last call may be included in
AD reviews during the IESG review. Document editors and WG chairs should treat
these comments like any other last call comments.

This document obsoletes [RFC9093] by replacing it in its entirety. It provides
a new revision of the YANG module contained in that RFC, and retains the data
types previously defined, but also adds new type(ietf-layer0-types )definitions
to the YANG module. The document is clear and well-written. The motivation is
described well. The document is almost ready for publication.

## Minor
1.For Normative References:
Please pay more attention to ​​draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update-17​​, which has
not yet entered the IESG process. 2. The following text points to non-existent
sections. [I-D.ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang] does not contain
Section 2.5.2. Was "Section 2.6.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang] perhaps intended as shown
below Current: Section 2.5.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang] Perhaps: Section 2.6.2 of
[I-D.ietf-ccamp-optical-impairment-topology-yang]

## NITS:
- s/decending/descending/

Thanks for your contribution!
Best Regards,
Ran Chen