Re: [core] ๐Ÿ”” WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12, -sid-11, -comi-09, -yang-library-01 / -sid-11 review

Ivaylo Petrov <> Wed, 15 April 2020 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1553A0779 for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LsTX9fSih61I for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::331]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DC55B3A0776 for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g12so11213173wmh.3 for <>; Wed, 15 Apr 2020 06:27:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; 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;; 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 <>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2020 15:26:52 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: Esko Dijk <>
Cc: " WG" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008424ed05a3544640"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WG_Last_Call_of_CORECONF_drafts=3A?= =?utf-8?q?_draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12=2C_-sid-11=2C_-comi-09=2C_-yang-l?= =?utf-8?q?ibrary-01_/_-sid-11_review?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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,


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 1:17 PM Esko Dijk <>

> 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 (
> 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
>  |  Email/Skype:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: core <> On Behalf Of Carsten Bormann
> Sent: Monday, March 9, 2020 14:05
> To: core <>
> Cc:
> Subject: [core] ๐Ÿ”” 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
> โ€” draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12
> โ€” draft-ietf-core-sid-11
> โ€” draft-ietf-core-comi-09
> โ€” 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.
> GrรผรŸe, Carsten
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list