Re: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12, -sid-11, -comi-09, -yang-library-01 / -sid-11 review
Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io> Wed, 15 April 2020 13:27 UTC
Return-Path: <ivaylo@ackl.io>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1553A0779 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, 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=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.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 LsTX9fSih61I for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x331.google.com (mail-wm1-x331.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (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 DC55B3A0776 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x331.google.com with SMTP id g12so11213173wmh.3 for <core@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ackl-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=NGifetFEu1I2LN0x9KachFFADb01ehQEoX/dHXucKjI=; b=Tc0EJW2WyU4/sNRyNyO0plsUtNN/3S/xK2duk90C00jX3XRry7O48PiSeKg4gylUWp Egz4X8He9f18JelT6tGD/+Of8o+QNxdPhCs0fgI6U0wnbnALtrYTlSe1ktj/aQ+/n1M/ I5BDyeuPWKYm1JFmEEhj0f2M+NFPK83UEJkiV1UGk2lcOWpSHVQXmDsDiucRIhN7UJr5 UzD3FWsPRYImGmBxZx0L0iD/eBZliho5moUd7v2SlJqPm/ByG+3fU0CSwLlsx/0tM1Pf 1rZEYEFKXQiC12jm638/in0g5SdB4FSE1C6kjpk7lQ8emN61ygm6Ma/ic9CchQVGXMPj UWFg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=NGifetFEu1I2LN0x9KachFFADb01ehQEoX/dHXucKjI=; b=NVvnRGFIfOlhOZ6zLsWTVJVZVAoWbkEyuffkC/73aSMwmoX0I5oXRUQASdMpltckvp xpisHFqP99x7CEmNuZzwvxG9WnskM21Hfa1qhXyRSvTdsow72Q8FYGuT8czqpBOIO5Nz FB7l5a3Drr7WHc5B/ThPmIQGnaGWsfrAVX4HuqHrGgR9QfWil3O9T3cLIaUsh8ZisHIX jAa7a3vz4Zi3eGwW26OozD420RRpa+B0g8bFyohd19mUVVszi2HjBnX2Z80PqXl+mn13 YX0W0ALTaqXo/FBIuVc3AU12a98kMw5DSI3K87zGt1QWT2lxR8+qhGgwnfRfafVpAb0k nvtg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuYWjhtJbHWJ7gPdOOHvBmTuLFHq/bNrjfJwQe02dG+zbZBJKow0 cf41/bU05kcVWVxhYew9Z/D/0JL+RbFQWJfUP5uGWw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJUs8LJ6NENJbr6+CkySim+rGHg9zP9hw+gA5mk91OuYWJp//G2igjQMuLap4Syg7mRhFGoH8XEzJLU1toAZHc=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:32c7:: with SMTP id y190mr5547617wmy.13.1586957239192; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:19 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <AM5P190MB0275B51995123947A5F1A5DBFDCB0@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <AM5P190MB0275B51995123947A5F1A5DBFDCB0@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
From: Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:26:52 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJFkdRzmG+_dsPVX+TTwOQVEo97juhiTmtE6d9FMVF5ss5JMqg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
Cc: "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008424ed05a3544640"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/-UH4lu_cO02KZji39id5vFhogfU>
Subject: Re: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12, -sid-11, -comi-09, -yang-library-01 / -sid-11 review
X-BeenThere: core@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core/>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core>, <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 13:27:25 -0000
Hello Esko, Thank you for your review and your comments! They do help us improve this document. Please find my answers below (prefixed with [IP]). Note that the diff after handing your comments and those of Juergen Schoenwaelder can be found at [1]. Best regards, Ivaylo [1]: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-core-sid&url2=http://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-ietf-core-sid-latest.txt On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:17 PM Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl> wrote: > Hello CoRE, > > I did a quick review of the -sid-11 draft; it looks ready for publication. > Some minor issues found : > > Reference to RFC 7120 early allocation procedure: the allocation policies > for the registries are all "Expert review". And the RFC 7120 early > allocation procedure is defined, to do early allocations. However RFC 7120 > mentions that this procedure only applies in case : > (Section 2) > a. The code points must be from a space designated as "RFC > Required", "IETF Review", or "Standards Action". Additionally, > requests for early assignment of code points from a > "Specification Required" registry are allowed if the > specification will be published as an RFC. > So at first sight it looks like the procedure is not applicable, taken > strictly. However IANA indicates ( > https://www.iana.org/help/protocol-registration) that "Expert review" is > part of "Specification Required" so it would apply still. But in RFC 8126 > this is not mentioned in the same manner - so it could confuse some readers > about whether it applies or not. Maybe some text could be added to state > why RFC 7120 process does apply to the "Expert review" policy, even though > "Expert review" is not listed under Section 2 point a. of RFC 7120. (Note > that early allocation by RFC 7120 only applies to "Expert review" > allocations for draft documents that aim to become RFC.) > [IP]: We are in the process of reformulating this. Section 6.3.3: table column 1 is very narrow and it breaks the entry point > integer number, which is confusing. Why not make this column wider by one > character? One of the last 2 columns can be made more narrow if needed. > [IP]: Fixed. Section 3: "RESCONF" -> RESTCONF > [IP]: Fixed. > Section 3: CoRECONF -> CORECONF > [IP]: Fixed. Section 3: "For example how this could be achieved, please refer to" > -> For examples on how this could be achieved, please refer to > [IP]: Fixed. Section 3: "For diagram of one" > -> For a diagram of one ... > [IP]: Fixed. Best regards > > Esko > > IoTconsultancy.nl | Email/Skype: esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: core <core-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann > Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 14:05 > To: core <core@ietf.org> > Cc: netmod@ietf.org > Subject: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: > draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12, -sid-11, -comi-09, -yang-library-01 > > It took us a long time to get the four CORECONF drafts in sync, > but now we are ready for WGLC. > > This starts a working group last call for > β draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12 > β draft-ietf-core-sid-11 > β draft-ietf-core-comi-09 > β draft-ietf-core-yang-library-01 > > ending on > > 24:00 UTC on Tuesday, March 31, 2020. > > (This includes some extra time for the IETF week and for cross-WG > coordination.) > > This WGLC is copied to the netmod WG mailing list; please do have a look > at these drafts as they are slated to become a part of the greater > YANG/NETCONF/RESTCONF family. We intend the discussion to be on the > CoRE mailing list, but if you find a fundamental issue with YANG or > RESTCONF, feel free to discuss that on netmod instead. > > Please start a new email thread for each major issue that will need > discussion and make sure the subject line includes the draft name and > some sort of name for the issue. (Minor issues such as typos can also > be sent to the authors.) > > If you read the draft and think it looks fine, please send a one line > email to the list or to the chairs letting us know that so we can get > a feel of how broad the review has been. > > (To reviewers and authors:) If you are aware of any patent claims that > might apply to systems that implement these drafts, please review BCP 78 > and BCP 79 and make any appropriate IPR declaration before the last-call > ends. If you are not sure whether you need to make a declaration or not, > please talk to the chairs and we will help. > > GrΓΌΓe, Carsten > > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > core@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core > _______________________________________________ > core mailing list > core@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core >
- Re: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draβ¦ Esko Dijk
- Re: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draβ¦ Laurent Toutain
- Re: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draβ¦ tom petch
- Re: [core] [netmod] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drβ¦ Alexander Pelov
- Re: [core] π WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draβ¦ Ivaylo Petrov