Re: [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

I am guessing that the authors intended the addition of the text 
emphasizing that the no-zone typedefs are derived general typedef 
addresses the difference in the patterns.

Is there a YANG rule that says tat if typedef X is derived from typedef 
Y then the string for X must match the pattern for X and the pattern for 
Y?  If so, then my concern below is misplaced.  (The fact that I find 
the vague pattern for the child misleading is not a fault with the 
document, but rather in my head, under that requirement.)

Yours,
Joel

On 4/19/2013 6:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01
>      Common YANG Data Types
> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
> Review Date: 19-April-2013
> IETF LC End Date: 1-May-2013
> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>
> Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Standards
> Track RFC
>
> Major issues:
>      (The following may well be a non-issue.)
>      In the revision of the ietf-inet-types, the patterns for the new
> ip4-address-no-zone and ipv6-address-no-zone are drastically simplified
> from the ipv4-address and ipv6-address patterns.  The new
> ipv4-address-no-zone allows any sequence of decimal digits an periods,
> while the original was carefully defined as dotted quads of 0..255.
> Similarly, te ipv6-address-no-zone allows any arbitrary sequence of hex
> digits and colons.  The original patterns were very careful to match
> rules for validity.  Is there a reason for the change.
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>