Re: [core] ๐Ÿ”” WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draft-ietf-core-yang-, IANA -sid-11,

tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> Mon, 30 March 2020 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <ietfc@btconnect.com>
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 26C963A1816; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:18:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.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 mXCyZ7p7s0CW; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:18:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from EUR01-DB5-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-eopbgr150125.outbound.protection.outlook.com [40.107.15.125]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A4A03A0CA1; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 09:18:56 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=QE0oCivs+1NOpGzP/IMZcDIg8JOTCTHcm0m0TfRUxpFnDc5b2Rd1+l8nqugGD8lC+4gtox/FOTda4dFlmG5xPWs8CUk/GicT61sLuy3CgPkL6bOI+F52JQ0JGb6dWRYUNbulLa3wd9uB/+FJHj0T+IVXXwTfhGoNLlgNg7D4GRI4niTdEZCJw8DjeFmyOTdtLXcNIUlmZgUbMdolfEqG1tApK1HewYt5ecGa1jugAt7QIECvgLCZBGW8JtA6fW8TeLRn6TekyQ4A6ZJhPq3I5pLglQfvb6H7V+hijK710txhJbJ7tLjOuIJQX1vLUc9acpiHabTFL+yTvbbRcRTFSQ==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NSkZ/wDu7WcjMPxHR873U6ceHiy0B2+UJEjw8bQ6Ies=; b=C8sXSw4h8N2LMn1HIrFYDQB71P8L2XriHKV9DCqKE697Qu0U8CWvT9+BG/Jg28ZgHEniJUwdsdL78RsCF0Kh9B9wByos88qQq9Dribh6ASPLyThUTbQJNcunkg0/jzJ2/kRofsEH3c/r1QSQDXdbixnQg37v+RZTwQQFfMZ3NDU0GWs3Yr9TyAIusp8HNzhVqVb9sbxVLu3M96ISHpgpRAcLEhE2T3N0sqpd7e42mRTNB62flFHzLG1F4EFvZ8E2SgLdGPkUY5WcjlpJ9at+PtD2w4M77eW5fCnfCZo/QOqh3x7Oa7sh+tRlz1yFXZwDol9HuTZujwHdojsI2H48aA==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=btconnect.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=btconnect.com; dkim=pass header.d=btconnect.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=btconnect.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-btconnect-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=NSkZ/wDu7WcjMPxHR873U6ceHiy0B2+UJEjw8bQ6Ies=; b=sB5nsGlSH1guP2/a/htL8rfn1I9JjVihEo1R7taehAX3VJx3ij79do6kvyVSH29gTx+QZL+aQjaEnwCP9OFKZ0+39iRZYq8VSpM8/9bs+ZjrCHwzeJeT+mBCoUgBTDCuuStCnvB39GTAK0N3Tb8GEO52XbTAXR3PArcJIKKyCLM=
Received: from DB7PR07MB5657.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (20.178.85.222) by DB7PR07MB4089.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com (52.134.100.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.2878.13; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:18:54 +0000
Received: from DB7PR07MB5657.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a438:bbc9:2ffe:33ee]) by DB7PR07MB5657.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::a438:bbc9:2ffe:33ee%5]) with mapi id 15.20.2878.013; Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:18:54 +0000
From: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
To: Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>, "core@ietf.org WG" <core@ietf.org>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?W2NvcmVdIPCflJQgV0cgTGFzdCBDYWxsIG9mIENPUkVDT05GIGRyYWZ0czog?= =?utf-8?Q?draft-ietf-core-yang-,_IANA_-sid-11,_?=
Thread-Index: AQHWBq7oLg5+VvUKH022v840zvA5Bw==
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2020 16:18:54 +0000
Message-ID: <DB7PR07MB565703AE7ABFFF4B64869BB9A0CB0@DB7PR07MB5657.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
References: <AM5P190MB0275B51995123947A5F1A5DBFDCB0@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
In-Reply-To: <AM5P190MB0275B51995123947A5F1A5DBFDCB0@AM5P190MB0275.EURP190.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=ietfc@btconnect.com;
x-originating-ip: [81.131.229.19]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 634db08e-d20c-43a0-34b5-08d7d4c60ad6
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DB7PR07MB4089:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DB7PR07MB4089F04ADDB0D3F96D45CC57A0CB0@DB7PR07MB4089.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0358535363
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:DB7PR07MB5657.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFTY:; SFS:(10019020)(346002)(366004)(136003)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(316002)(110136005)(81156014)(55016002)(186003)(26005)(81166006)(71200400001)(53546011)(478600001)(7696005)(86362001)(6506007)(33656002)(76116006)(966005)(5660300002)(2906002)(4326008)(52536014)(9686003)(4743002)(64756008)(91956017)(8936002)(66476007)(66446008)(66946007)(66556008); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: btconnect.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 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
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: JeYj0I8AG/eh9KVIe1+jggo0MAEQrbmlRUWB7mnjDGI4TeRjk5OaFWrur8gEYUOfxfbnB3heQ+ubq2lJMRyzvBq+2dmuaA+un+g+sUKj2jhA8MlUqQVWfHaWaUj7zuv++t3gyuPSk977EsdmsTByoA==
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: btconnect.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 634db08e-d20c-43a0-34b5-08d7d4c60ad6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 30 Mar 2020 16:18:54.4709 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: cf8853ed-96e5-465b-9185-806bfe185e30
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: WfjYLs7ohITnbeKCNyngT1GeLpvgoip3vr5doSTLkKo7XiGhyfn0foLrl0fye0r2m0vqO027AxTmEbJZFsu6Ow==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DB7PR07MB4089
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/jNBTGliH8Y3duZ1ONTQqLL2tJpw>
Subject: Re: [core] =?utf-8?q?=F0=9F=94=94_WG_Last_Call_of_CORECONF_drafts=3A?= =?utf-8?q?_draft-ietf-core-yang-=2C_IANA_-sid-11=2C?=
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, 30 Mar 2020 16:18:59 -0000

From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Esko Dijk <esko.dijk@iotconsultancy.nl>
Sent: 30 March 2020 12:17

<tp>
Picking up on the early allocation and tweaking the title slightly so the other points do not get lost

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.)

<tp>
I think that early allocation and expert review are not compatible.

I see a lot of early allocation  in the Routing Area.  An I-D is adopted, code gets written, interop needs agree values so the authors ask the WG chairs for early allocation,  WG Chairs ask the WG, all being well the request goes to the AD, who reviews the request and all being well OKs it to IANA, where it is marked as temporary expiring in a year.  The I-D wends its way and may take a long time to become an RFC, over a year may be (early allocation gets renewed) but the code does not need changing and goes into production.

With expert review, the expert reviews the request and if the criteria specified when the registry was set up are met, the request is granted; takes weeks, may be days, no hanging around, as quick as an early allocation would be or quicker since no AD, no WG Chairs are involved.

The only hiccup would be now, before the I-D setting up the registry is approved, since it could be months, a year even, before an RFC emerges and until then no expert review is possible.  But until that RFC is approved, at least until the IESG have approved it, there is no authority for expert review and indeed IETF Last Call or IESG Review may say that expert review is too  lightweight and must not be allowed for the registry in question.

So I cannot see a reason to combine early allocation and expert review even if the relevant IANA RFC do not make it clear that this is not a logical combination.

Tom Petch 

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.

Section 3: "RESCONF" -> RESTCONF

Section 3: CoRECONF -> CORECONF

Section 3: "For example how this could be achieved, please refer to"
-> For examples on how this could be achieved, please refer to

Section 3: "For diagram of one"
-> For a diagram of one ...

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] 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@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod