Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2024-09-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 16 (document currently at 17) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2024-09-13 | |
| Requested | 2024-08-27 | |
| Requested by | Mahesh Jethanandani | |
| Authors | Jürgen Schönwälder | |
| I-D last updated | 2024-09-10 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -16
by Martin Björklund
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -16 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -16 by Rifaat Shekh-Yusef (diff) Dnsdir Last Call review of -16 by Florian Obser (diff) Genart Last Call review of -16 by Russ Housley (diff) Artart Last Call review of -16 by Bron Gondwana (diff) Dnsdir Telechat review of -17 by Florian Obser |
|
| Comments |
While the request for YANG Doctors is obvious, the other directorate reviews are more to make sure there is nothing that the WG might have overlooked. In particular, there was quite a bit of discussion around date/time and zone offset, that could use another pair of eyes. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Giuseppe Fioccola |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/e5XU1yxUhIWnAUucJkn1AywVPAY | |
| Reviewed revision | 16 (document currently at 17) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2024-09-10 |
review-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-16-opsdir-lc-fioccola-2024-09-10-00
This document is clear for its scope. It simply adds new type definitions to the "ietf-yang-types" and "ietf-inet-types" YANG modules and obsoletes RFC 6991. The new types defined in the YANG modules are quite understandable, but I would suggest to add some explanation, maybe in section 2, about the motivations behind the addition of these new types (for example, the new date/time related types compared to the date-and-time type already defined in RFC 6021). I noticed that there are two appendixes about the changes from RFC 6991 and from RFC 6021, which only refer to section 3 and section 4. I think it is useful to add a reference also to section 2, since the tables there show the new types with respect to RFC 6991 and RFC 6021. Additionally, you can consider to move these appendixes as subsections of section 1.