Subject: [pim] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-pim-yang-12: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2018 05:22:59 -0800

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-pim-yang-12: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-yang/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know what the convention is but this doc does not contain the section
describing the tree diagram syntax that YANG docs usually have. Is the
agreement to have that in all YANG docs or is it okay to omit it?

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:24:07 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pim-yang/
This is fine.
There is this reference:

    A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
    this document.  The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
    defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-pim-yang-12#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>].

It is a new draft, with a new convention.

This reference is somehow hidden in the draft terminology section.

Several drafts have adopted the "convention" of creating a new section.
See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-01#section-1.3
It would be great if the authors could follow it.

Regards, Benoit
> .