Hi Italo，
Thank you for addressing my comments.
It looks good to me.
Thanks,
Ran
Original
From: ItaloBusi <Italo.Busi=40huawei.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: 陈然00080434;ops-dir@xxxxxxxx <ops-dir@xxxxxxxx>;
Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx <ccamp@xxxxxxxx>;draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis.all@xxxxxxxx <draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis.all@xxxxxxxx>;last-call@xxxxxxxx <last-call@xxxxxxxx>;
Date: 2025年08月07日 21:06
Subject: [OPS-DIR]Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-15 ietf last call Opsdir review
Hi Ran,
Thanks a lot for your review and comments
We have just uploaded a -16 version of the I-D addressing them. See below our detailed replies
Thanks
Sergio and Italo (on behalf of co-authors/contributors)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ran Chen via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: giovedì 26 giugno 2025 10:01
> To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis.all@xxxxxxxx; last-
> call@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-15 ietf last call Opsdir review
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis
> Title: Common YANG Data Types for Layer 0 Networks
> Reviewer: Ran Chen
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> 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.
Authors: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update has passed TEAS WG LC but not yet been sent to IESG. The authors, the CCAMP WG chairs and the responsible AD are fully aware of this dependency: see slide 12 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-123-ccamp-ccamp-admin-slides/
> 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]
>
Authors: The references have been updated to reference section 2.6.2
> ## NITS:
> - s/decending/descending/
>
Authors: fixed
> Thanks for your contribution!
> Best Regards,
> Ran Chen
>
>
_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list -- ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ops-dir-leave@xxxxxxxx
Thanks a lot for your review and comments
We have just uploaded a -16 version of the I-D addressing them. See below our detailed replies
Thanks
Sergio and Italo (on behalf of co-authors/contributors)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ran Chen via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
> Sent: giovedì 26 giugno 2025 10:01
> To: ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
> Cc: ccamp@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis.all@xxxxxxxx; last-
> call@xxxxxxxx
> Subject: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis-15 ietf last call Opsdir review
>
> Document: draft-ietf-ccamp-rfc9093-bis
> Title: Common YANG Data Types for Layer 0 Networks
> Reviewer: Ran Chen
> Review result: Has Nits
>
> 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.
Authors: draft-ietf-teas-rfc8776-update has passed TEAS WG LC but not yet been sent to IESG. The authors, the CCAMP WG chairs and the responsible AD are fully aware of this dependency: see slide 12 of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/slides-123-ccamp-ccamp-admin-slides/
> 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]
>
Authors: The references have been updated to reference section 2.6.2
> ## NITS:
> - s/decending/descending/
>
Authors: fixed
> Thanks for your contribution!
> Best Regards,
> Ran Chen
>
>
_______________________________________________
OPS-DIR mailing list -- ops-dir@xxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to ops-dir-leave@xxxxxxxx
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
