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

Ivaylo Petrov <> Wed, 08 April 2020 12:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915103A0803 for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 05:07:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 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, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SXL366rwmrKL for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 05:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E844B3A080F for <>; Wed, 8 Apr 2020 05:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id z7so4881844wmk.1 for <>; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 05:07:26 -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=ubyz84biSrkTHonihLNtGJxzih6focFYjnRCj+00tDo=; b=dYMTI8emdj9rGILjRm/76QESc6DnYWes8FGfTFlF1SLQN1r8Bbs4gHOimc8PA0qfqw sZBEPMt5eQH1ShllqDrAjzu7Ax1GxAbIy4oIgvqvS2yUHIk61zROhzoHhoSRYrNoqLMD Ppsy1/y9z9Rn6whk7MRYxACwdKrU6+fm9pz41lJmSKJ0ZdzoiQ0PpHUBoWmwQIVwiXxn xLGDsNL8laGl5vrkX8ubLrXpcjAbsZi33rF6QJreH481zykwMCSvPwAzp5z7ffcq1Wlx zNM9udiAeLIi4fCUBZqLHySkH3HXe2hPUlX19JjGmwbCb6S1Zm5WQhpMmjSaurtFeTbx ShSg==
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=ubyz84biSrkTHonihLNtGJxzih6focFYjnRCj+00tDo=; b=U4hZLlKfIHbGFgXOiiZ1XmJe6wwwW3hwdLU+0iqp8VW/c4lPPaNke39y61aKoUZsL1 EpLVU50C3b870PN9g2BbfFB+KPu/naEVUw8AdTj+xAebHDBWUSj2NiCFQd1+EzZpImv5 zUXGw2RGT5FMCXX9IypcyC7P2O8EmeqZne+aKXFOd92a33ksnvlPme2jg07rwRcHNHB8 Qqvyky0LVPPe9qjCXswJ/TCKTrpUFQe6JVhrqPg07xH9z+Xhr0Bbs/10NcUwabHroWKR 7iQMb8OKE28ptaLm8Vp3WQvKo2nVBx/B6wMHHnyWruYxyukT91QOZjyRnqPuK9Yhr190 EayA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0PuaF9EyvJEB0majhdib+6RvXj8iM1uZNYjOiB23H9U/z0As6aDSk c6wBZ3opX0cfMY1QGtBGW/Fg9yoAIrlAZs+ql6GgAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypIL/8bUdY/YEF5bOZG6qmV6MA6+EWwiT5/xaqSLmarN71upmD7lztN6B6EKY8PqkYnLGuGcONHa1dKe3bZoJPI=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:5502:: with SMTP id j2mr4405367wmb.93.1586347645337; Wed, 08 Apr 2020 05:07:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Ivaylo Petrov <>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2020 14:06:59 +0200
Message-ID: <>
To: tom petch <>
Cc: core <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000e4168605a2c65739"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] =?utf-8?q?=5Bnetmod=5D_=F0=9F=94=94_admin_WG_Last_Call_of?= =?utf-8?q?_CORECONF_drafts=3A_draft-ietf-core-yang-yang-library-01?=
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, 08 Apr 2020 12:07:33 -0000

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.

Best regards,


On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:11 PM tom petch <> 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
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 <> on behalf of Carsten Bormann <
> Sent: 09 March 2020 13:04
> To: core
> Cc:
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> core mailing list