Re: [babel] Éric Vyncke's Discuss on draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-10: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Wed, 02 June 2021 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: babel@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8C673A19B3; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:21:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hpgKLdoejyII; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:20:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x1034.google.com (mail-pj1-x1034.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1034]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C26613A19B1; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x1034.google.com with SMTP id k22-20020a17090aef16b0290163512accedso2175664pjz.0; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 13:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=3mPNPF6cie2IZ/tIEZMIsd8bhTZ2yDLJz2OrY4L3z7I=; b=Eg1s3kFLwinjubFhI06vRBLXZy5l+wsOThegQv1XarMWCJ+0TanxDgtRjLa7pv8DHs aQHQ0FSIQK+fxuePtBRbPEjgnxtHDE82l6LZYwZqT2xZpC+UXrODiIHu+N9VBOmGcq8N J0BP7Qong7jnTMgbThH7XMTRvXGjox+WSv8AOLJtKxQodPKtelN3YQhG+2PXpgpDd8TR crRyK49KMVMuTU8u4rTn+tJ1jhzTxnGEiokoTDSYNAhVT2BZzS/c24aSbXniTn5ZcJEm UBs3crk13dScG6M395aGPdM0GhQv1RF7q8xwN7TlDpax/cwdmRzb3et/TEB7Eiwvik1J 8mug==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=3mPNPF6cie2IZ/tIEZMIsd8bhTZ2yDLJz2OrY4L3z7I=; b=O1XxtBRoo46SWh0Mq/B1AS17x8F0ZzKnCZ05D+JRcNOvQUuO5E6iXmyo8LPsifmeeq xJmvre3Y5rcHY/1tQ1bCg3A4W3vYxCFkuavSmZTccQW3AbUxHgnZ4uG7QtA3O5H70hAy g8Sg0pANWbaQvnXjyS3tXYBwp4e6QOW6JFn4jXaw8D36ldfZgResYP1bY93HiuymrH2y Oe9pyjTGvIiwtAeLp9zNm940Lt1N5PLyiwhLryyCeoMlPXZ7XUH+zKlCeixDCS3/kscB pZnI2HScK9TbrjKlVAXAlI1FsqRhsHAg3RIuuXogkDPjYKy8VkgCOgmvvuK4NNnQR1cK vi6Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Dsc9R+KXe9ESFute+YokDY3xOf4LNElakGnKi52abHJGWmf7h oRuXY3PtWmkRaeuhyL1oWms=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy7ZGkBnZ5fDCm8VGjjKlx97y/oUCOiJbX1oGM+uXLUXjyyltf2NxRPZmgd+Tl2fo+Par53Hw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:1b68:: with SMTP id q95mr7339950pjq.116.1622665255247; Wed, 02 Jun 2021 13:20:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([66.129.239.11]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a129sm385041pfa.118.2021.06.02.13.20.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 02 Jun 2021 13:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <7BF282B2-79CA-442A-BF9C-31940F9F2749@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F268F033-6C27-4CFE-8A64-8B82B5AFC411"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.100.0.2.22\))
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 13:20:50 -0700
In-Reply-To: <b9b31f02-31fd-a75c-4892-649c0bd68695@nokia.com>
Cc: =?utf-8?Q?Martin_Bj=C3=B6rklund?= <mbj+ietf@4668.se>, babel-chairs <babel-chairs@ietf.org>, Babel at IETF <babel@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-babel-yang-model@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, =?utf-8?Q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke?= <evyncke@cisco.com>
To: Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com>
References: <162124475990.8618.15255310968103028424@ietfa.amsl.com> <39A68691-1C3F-4EF8-8621-D2FC5707B5AA@gmail.com> <20210519.084054.1713468977677987317.id@4668.se> <A5BAF28D-8856-482A-AA5E-F41ED3BA9BD2@gmail.com> <b9b31f02-31fd-a75c-4892-649c0bd68695@nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.100.0.2.22)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/babel/5yvsRqQcfWBy2suLxg8D9OjU_2U>
Subject: Re: [babel] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_Discuss_on_draft-ietf-bab?= =?utf-8?q?el-yang-model-10=3A_=28with_DISCUSS_and_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: babel@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the Babel Routing Protocol." <babel.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/babel/>
List-Post: <mailto:babel@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/babel>, <mailto:babel-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Jun 2021 20:21:03 -0000

Hi Martin V,

I have modified the model to comply with the strict checking that Martin B suggests.

Thanks.

> On Jun 2, 2021, at 1:04 PM, Martin Vigoureux <martin.vigoureux@nokia.com> wrote:
> 
> Martin, Mahesh,
> 
> so what is the conclusion on that?
> 
> Thank you
> -m
> 
> Le 2021-05-19 à 17:18, Mahesh Jethanandani a écrit :
>> Hi Martin,
>>> On May 18, 2021, at 11:40 PM, Martin Björklund <mbj+ietf@4668.se <mailto:mbj+ietf@4668.se>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> The YANG module does not compile correctly with PYANG, it should be
>>>>> easy to fix
>>>>> though :-) See:
>>>>> https://yangcatalog.org/results/ietf-babel@2021-05-12_ietf.html
>>>>> Or is it a PYANG error ?
>>>> 
>>>> This is a tooling error (even though I have gone ahead and changed it
>>>> in the model). The ABNF grammar says the following for identity-stmt
>>>> in RFC 7950.
>>>> 
>>>>   identity-stmt       = identity-keyword sep identifier-arg-str optsep
>>>>                         (";" /
>>>>                          "{" stmtsep
>>>>                              ;; these stmts can appear in any order
>>>>                              *if-feature-stmt
>>>>                              *base-stmt
>>>>                              [status-stmt]
>>>>                              [description-stmt]
>>>>                              [reference-stmt]
>>>>                          "}") stmtsep
>>>> 
>>>> According to it, the ‘if-feature’ and ‘base-stmt’ can appear in any
>>>> order. But for some reason pyang version 2.4.0 insists on a particular
>>>> order. I will bring this up with tooling folks.
>>> 
>>> This is not a tooling error.  The error message is:
>>> 
>>> ietf-babel@2021-05-12.yang <mailto:ietf-babel@2021-05-12.yang>:148: error: keyword "if-feature" not in
>>>    canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)
>>> 
>>> [side note: the RFC ref in this error message should be updated to RFC
>>> 7950 Section 14]
>>> 
>>> The referenced section says:
>>> 
>>>   The ABNF grammar [RFC5234] [RFC7405] defines the canonical order.
>>> 
>>> When we publish YANG models in RFCs we use the canonical order in
>>> order to have a consistent format.  pyang checks this when the flag
>>> --ietf is used.
>> I am trying to understand, and this is more for my education, what rule within the grammar is determining the canonical order?
>> Also, should pyang report this as an error, or maybe a warning might be better? After all, this is being done for consistency reasons.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> /martin
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> COMMENT:
>>>>> 
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 
>>>>> == COMMENTS ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> The related links on should be updated. E.g., the YANG catalog entry
>>>>> should be:
>>>>> https://www.yangcatalog.org/yang-search/module_details.php?module=ietf-babel@2021-05-12
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Section 2.2 --
>>>>> I usually use the expanded tree view rather the YANG module itself to
>>>>> get a
>>>>> global view. Is there any reason why the full tree view is not
>>>>> included?
>>>> 
>>>> Added this to the Appendix.
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Section 5 --
>>>>> Is there any reason why the doc shepherd is not acknowledged ?
>>>>> 
>>>>> == NITS ==
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- Section 2.3 --
>>>>> s/MAC based security/MAC-based security/ ?
>>>> 
>>>> Fixed.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks.
>>>> 
>>>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>>>> mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
>> mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com