Re: [CCAMP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-08: (with DISCUSS)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 11 April 2019 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ccamp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75C712028C; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 01:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 VFBZvYWTgRvP; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 01:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6298120288; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 01:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A61501AE0472; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:32:38 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 10:32:40 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20190411.103240.1959371547592571295.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: adam@nostrum.com, noreply@ietf.org
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module@ietf.org, daniele.ceccarelli@ericsson.com, ccamp-chairs@ietf.org, ccamp@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <155494862674.22530.7930636866065474567.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <155494862674.22530.7930636866065474567.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.2 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ccamp/uNym4sy43iUZ-OpY_m5owoIALTA>
Subject: Re: [CCAMP] Adam Roach's Discuss on draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-08: (with DISCUSS)
X-BeenThere: ccamp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion list for the CCAMP working group <ccamp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ccamp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ccamp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ccamp>, <mailto:ccamp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:32:43 -0000

Hi,

Adam Roach via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-ccamp-alarm-module-08: Discuss
> 
> 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-ccamp-alarm-module/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ยง6:
> 
> >         If the type is given as an UUID or a string, it is interpreted
> >         as a W3C regular expression, which matches a resource of type
> >         'yang:uuid' or 'string' if the given regular expression
> >         matches the resource string.
> 
> This needs a citation for what is meant by "W3C regular expression." I'm making
> a wild guess that this refers to the regular expressions defined for use with
> XSD? If so, the reference is presumably this document:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/

You're right.  I have added a reference. In RFC 7950 we reference
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028, so perhaps we
should do that here as well (the idea is to use the same regexp as in
YANG).  But OTOH the regexp definition has not changed at all between
XSD 1.0 and 1.1, so perhaps it doesn't matter.



/martin