Re: [babel] Minor format problem in draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-04

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

Hi Barbara,

You bring up a good point.

Have added feature statements for security, MAC and certificate types, and made the identity statements conditional on the features being declared. Also beefed up the example to show how the system could be configured for HMAC-SHA256 MAC algorithm.

Thanks.

> On Jan 6, 2020, at 6:39 AM, STARK, BARBARA H <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh,
> In looking over this change, I’m trying to understand how indicating supported metric computation algorithms (expressed through feature + identity statements, but no leaf-list) differs from indicating supported security mechanisms, MAC algorithms, and certificate types (expressed through identity statements + leaf-list).
>  
> Why would we not use the same approach for all 4 of these?
> Barbara
>  
> From: babel <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani
> Sent: Friday, January 03, 2020 4:22 PM
> To: Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]>
> Cc: Babel at IETF <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [babel] Minor format problem in draft-ietf-babel-yang-model-04
>  
> Hi Donald,
>  
> In trying to make the changes you requested, I came across another change that needs to be pushed.
>  
> The information model suggests that babel-information-obj should maintain a list of metric-comp-algorithm that are supported by an implementation. The problem with just keeping a list in YANG is that there is no way to enforce that the implementation uses only those algorithms. To address the issue we had introduced the concept of features in -04 version of the draft.
>  
> Using the feature statement, the implementation can declare which of the metric-comp-algorithms it supports, which was the intention of having a list of those algorithms in the first place. As such, we do not need the global list anymore, and needs to be removed. I will be adding that change in the -05 version of the draft.
>  
> If you feel that it requires a short LC to be issued, please feel free to do so after I post the draft.
>  
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> On Jan 3, 2020, at 10:32 AM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Mahesh,
>  
> You're welcome. My apologies for not noticing it earlier. Can you go ahead and post a revision with this trivial change?
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  
>  
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2020 at 2:21 AM Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>  
> Yes, that should be ok. And thanks for catching it.
>  
> Cheers.
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> 
> On Jan 2, 2020, at 8:27 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Mahesh,
> 
> Happy New Year!
> 
> There seems to be a minor format problem in this draft, in particular four lines, all identical, that are 76 characters long. Lines over 72 characters are not allowed in Internet Drafts.
> 
> On page 34, page 35, page 36, and page 38 the following line occurs:
>             xmlns:babel="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-babel">babel:babel
> Is it possible to fold this into something like
>             xmlns:babel=
>                 "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-babel">babel:babel
> or just reduce the indent of those lines?
> 
> Thanks,
> Donald
> ===============================
>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   [phone] (cell)
>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>  
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
Mahesh Jethanandani
[e-mail]