Re: [core] [netmod] 🔔 admin WG Last Call of CORECONF drafts: draft-ietf-core-yang-yang-library-01

From: Ivaylo Petrov <ivaylo@ackl.io>
Sent: 08 April 2020 13:06
Hello Tom,

Thank you for your review and your comments! They were indeed very helpful. I will try to spend some more time making sure we follow the recommendations from RFC8407, but for now please find my answers below (prefixed with [IP]). Note that the diff after handing your comments can be found at [1] for the txt file diff and [2] for the raw Markdown diff.

<TP>
I like your initials!

On Security, no, RFC8407 requires you to use the boilerplate from the wiki; except that you cannot since you must reference CORECONF but I think that you must use the boiler plate with minimal change ie just adding the reference to CORECONF.  The Security in RFC7895 is out of date, no RESTCONF.

Otherwise, looks ok and I will look again when a new I-D appears - I do like the plain text I-D format as a way of working:-)

tom petch

Best regards,
Ivaylo

[1]: https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-core-yang-library&url2=http://core-wg.github.io/yang-cbor/draft-ietf-core-yang-library-latest.txt
[2]: https://github.com/core-wg/yang-cbor/commit/2aa29f2468c827fd4b58cad6a5decba795d9c767

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:11 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com<mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com>> wrote:
There is quite a lot wrong with the admin of the YANG-library I-D when compared with RFC8407 IMHO

Security considerations does not conform to boiler plate

[IP]: Adding the following text in the beginning of the security considerations will make it follow the same structure as RFC7895. Would that be acceptable for you?

The YANG module defined in this memo is designed to be accessed via CORECONF
{{-comi}}, NETCONF {{RFC6241}} or RESTCONF {{RFC8040}}. Depending on the used
protocol, the security considerations of some or all of those will apply.

IANA considerations does not register name space

[IP]: I added such registration. Please let me know if it looks fine. The relevant text is:

## YANG Namespace Registration

This document registers the following XML namespace URN in the "IETF XML
Registry", following the format defined in {{RFC3688}}:

URI: please assign urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-constrained-yang-library

Registrant Contact: The IESG.

XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

RFC 6991  is imported and so MUST be a Normative reference

[IP]: Fixed

ietf-sid-file is imported and so MUST be a Normative  not Informative reference for the I-D

[IP]: Fixed

reference ietf-core-sid would be better as RFC YYYY with an RFC Editor note asking them to replace YYYY with the number assigned to 'YANG Schema ...

[IP]: Fixed

Organization Netconf WG seems an odd choice and contradicts contact details

[IP]: Changed to CoRE WG

Contact does not normally specify WG Chairs

[IP]: I removed the chairs and left only the group and the editors. Is that what you had in mind?

more than one revision clause

[IP]: Fixed

CORECONF not an abbreviation I recognise

[IP]: We have received other comments related to this. We will discuss them during the meeting today and try to clarify this.

I will look some more as and when these are addressed (or I see IETF Last Call:-)

Tom Petch
________________________________________
From: netmod <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org<mailto:cabo@tzi.org>>
Sent: 09 March 2020 13:04
To: core
Cc: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: [netmod] 🔔 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
— draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-12
— draft-ietf-core-sid-11
— draft-ietf-core-comi-09
— 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.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
core mailing list
core@ietf.org<mailto:core@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/core