Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12

"Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <> Tue, 01 June 2021 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71383A1512 for <>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GCUKZjyjS68w for <>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B6683A150F for <>; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 05:04:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4FvVwQ6LKQz6T1YH; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 19:55:34 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 14:04:36 +0200
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 20:04:34 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 20:04:34 +0800
From: "Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong)" <>
To: tom petch <>, Janos Farkas <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12
Thread-Index: AQHXU7CSqDhaWVpxJkepqOZkRzeM26r+buhAgAAFm4CAAJ8ycA==
Date: Tue, 1 Jun 2021 12:04:34 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions on Deterministic Networking BoF and Proposed WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 12:04:46 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your detailed guidance! 
Sure, I will review all your previous emails and discuss with other authors. We will try to address them together in the next version. If you have any other comments, please feel free to let us know.


-----Original Message-----
From: tom petch [] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 6:29 PM
To: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <>om>; Janos Farkas <>om>;
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12

From: Gengxuesong (Geng Xuesong) <>
Sent: 01 June 2021 03:10

Hi Tom

Thanks for reviewing the document and giving comments. We will update the document based on your suggestions.

Good!  I hope that this first set of comments are straightforward bringing the I-D in line with YANG Guidelines,  I think that they will generate some 100 or so changes and would encourage an update sooner rather than later as fixing them makes it easier for me to see more technical issues (and were it me I would never get them all right first time:-(

I have sent two other e-mail, one about layout, moving the tree diagram to the end, and that may be not so straightforward and then this morning a list of more technical comments on the YANG module which may generate more discussion.  Again, it is a long list and it may become simpler to separate some comments out into separate threads lest they get lost in the nesting but see how it goes.

Tom Petch


-----Original Message-----
From: detnet [] On Behalf Of t petch
Sent: Friday, May 28, 2021 6:59 PM
To: Janos Farkas <>om>;
Subject: Re: [Detnet] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12

On 27/05/2021 22:34, Janos Farkas wrote:
> All,
> This starts Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-detnet-yang-12
> The Working Group Last Call ends on June 11th.
> Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.

Looking at it from an editorial point of view, there are a significant number of defects which make it 'Not Ready'.

IANA Considerations MUST be present as per YANG Guidelines, RFC8407; no registration, no YANG module

Security Considerations MUST follow the template as per YANG Guidelines

Examples MUST use the addresses reserved for IETF documentation, not those allocated to other organisations.

Requirements Language is out of date - see RFC8174

YANG revision statement must refer to the title i.e. 'RFC XXXX; Determistic Networking (DetNet) YANG Model'

The Information Model is now an RFC

It is unfortunate that RFC9016 is Informationsl - it needs to be a Normative Reference IMO; your AD is probably familiar with this problem as it occurred as recently as last month and will doubtless occur many times again

import yang-types references an obsolete RFC

YANG prefix is cumbersome - I think 'detnet' quite long enough and likely too long - it is a shame that dtn is in use elsewhere

references in the YANG module, RFC, IEEE or ietf-draft etc.,  MUST appear in I-D References and there needs to be a good reason why they are not Normative; I rarely see such a reason.

six authors, one for the AD to reflect on

(perhaps not a coincidence:-)

I plan to look at the technical content of the YANG which may, or may not, throw up similar a number of considerations.

Tom Petch

> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
> This is useful and important, even from authors.
> Thank you,
> János (DetNet Co-Chair & doc Shepherd)

detnet mailing list