Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-comi-11 shepherd review

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 22 February 2021 14:28 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 44EF23A0B3A; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:28:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 8KaKakromamj; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:27:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96F193A0B91; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 06:27:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.118] (p5089a828.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [80.137.168.40]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by gabriel-vm-2.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4Dkkzw5qVHzyWk; Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:27:56 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <B981A721-73BF-4F63-8A67-3666955452DF@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 15:27:56 +0100
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 635696876.345477-c0bfc7c999841cb404045beae4649fdd
Reply-To: "core@ietf.org WG (core@ietf.org)" <core@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <63510607-74A6-4218-BE87-10EC6F4ACB38@tzi.org>
References: <B981A721-73BF-4F63-8A67-3666955452DF@tzi.org>
To: "core@ietf.org WG (core@ietf.org)" <core@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/8ZLdtAGTlr7IMLT4ZT0YGFYVKmI>
Subject: Re: [core] draft-ietf-core-comi-11 shepherd 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: Mon, 22 Feb 2021 14:28:11 -0000

Please note an interesting discussion over at netmod.

Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Yj7KvGvXlekWxKlu4JgqwXssIBM> and up.

It seems we a converging to a conclusion that means that the table at the top of page 14 in draft-ietf-core-comi-11.txt [1] is not wrong (it would make certain updates of a YANG module a non-backwards compatible change in the way we build URIs from that).

[1]: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-core-comi-11#page-14

That said, maybe we still want to look at why uint and int coding are so (unnecessarily?) different in their URL encodings.

Grüße, Carsten



> On 2021-02-04, at 05:47, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> wrote:
> 
> In my shepherd review of draft-ietf-core-comi-11, I have found a few points that probably need some WG action before we can submit this draft to IESG.
> (I also have submitted a PR addressing some nits, https://github.com/core-wg/comi/pull/1 .)
> 
> Specifically:
> 
> # Major
> 
> *** 5: This whole section is rather disappointing.  What does this
>    really do except for pointing at RFC 7959?  Is there any
>    recommendation in how to work around the race condition?  The
>    recommendation to use indefinite length is not solving any problem
>    (does not work except in very fortuitous cases).
> 
> *** 6.2.2 How does the pagination work, then?
>    This SHOULD is not actionable.
> 
> *** 7: This creates confusion between 4.01 and 4.03
> 
> # Minor
> 
> *** 2.2: While it is not clear whether there will be a SID 0, the text
>     seems to imply that this would be encoded in the empty string.
>     Should it rather specify a single "A”?
> 
> *** Appendix A:  Updated to reference RFC 8949 (see PR).
>     Do we need a new module version after this edit?
> 
> 
> Grüße, Carsten
> 
>