Thank you for this review, and your nit edits.
I will turn your nits into one or two pull requests so that we can be sure we
got them right. They don't look controversial at first glance.
That should be easy to do before the IESG telechat on this document.
Your higher level comments seem more difficult to deal with :-(
I'm not entirely sure how much change we can/should make to a document that is
going towards Internet Standard. I've asked the authors to convene next week
to discuss this. The implied MUSTs concern me most.
Perhaps there is someone who could comment more about how important it is to
keep text similar.
One reason we do not reference any new work (like RFFC9663) is that we might
not have implementation experience there, and IS are supposed to be about
what has actually been implemented.
For instance, has anyone actually implemented RFC9243 (the YANG model)?
In some sense, this is outside of RFC8415bis in the sense that 8415bis deals
with stuff that goes out the "southbound" interface. DHCP messages.
While 9243 is about what goes out the "northbound" interface.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx> . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
