Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

"Alexander Clemm" <ludwig@clemm.org> Thu, 14 December 2017 06:10 UTC

Return-Path: <ludwig@clemm.org>
X-Original-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C570412702E; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:10:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 CJdGz22T1BEI; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:10:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0C1051270AC; Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:10:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LAPTOPR7T053C2 ([73.71.191.170]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus002 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LbbdF-1errzP1gGh-00lCFD; Thu, 14 Dec 2017 07:10:08 +0100
From: Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>
To: 'Benoit Claise' <bclaise@cisco.com>, 'The IESG' <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org, i2rs@ietf.org, 'Ladislav Lhotka' <ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz>, i2rs-chairs@ietf.org, shares@ndzh.com
References: <150652322265.24969.3860334342840069904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <982cbc66-4fad-3ca5-b0c4-495a10570776@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <982cbc66-4fad-3ca5-b0c4-495a10570776@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 22:10:05 -0800
Message-ID: <022501d374a2$31514510$93f3cf30$@clemm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQH1gFGVFc1sTu/EEnmWepnP7Xqf/QF4YoOmovJ/fVA=
Content-Language: en-us
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:ZdwUd71yqZ2ZZ417eq8JGk64Rbm8qvKs+drIe9hCySBEZNzrThw IDUXpzkHM7sDBXevDVTwH2+tJVz2OwD3/5ka/j3kyN3UNFZWRaAWhWOsOcA0k3IK+aQ6MsB JRXkmcCd7N/CH3mszVBRrri8ub9EzJoX4X835VLFktRiGMwsvg+E68RjzjFAZ8Pxwf7DYr/ kEMi7L2jmQVhSt+0YpH2g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:bp6XVx0JH/E=:FZchvN5Gez4vnpP69CeBPB VRfOZCY8BeTmm1fqYCMkK7zK1oFjT2t7bPjZcGXMFOb5zC6l1XtbX2O6ilNVRtquo28Y+K1f1 t20qGHOdEwkvr+6+E4b7qOn0r4+PDJTvjhngbD0vVrDOSgYVOiC/leWWHGY+/krdt4JWfy5JA M5mDDS0oKEbBwe+mW3x1ARYeFqI1axmrbKfqTZwMjrlIzv3CFrU7XtJK8yJSgQYD8DTFK3ooX Ex3ALz3qrSnbjkPRy1v+O7CqaUeDaT6Q1lQIzxijKRGqq9yruyo6SqZsBO7tSZ2G+mSzMdwn7 /bD9ZaKPQrAm+ZA5e9lNWBAUP3LgjCM5W5RbBx68XhfpgUU56VBB14nn+vLq1bqcdUE7VYoHN W2nEmlBld5gL+D5NgR1gWRP/DcEqXIzg4NLoS2VOn7390//3qOk05OJGSqxGQpy+ctuXQoq2f 5/KvOBXmDglT/mqqzwzMOv1m+G2K/tLTTiv8Sm5YgFybJuMks7CyzGM9ZsY2ttBQ7uOpCAdoU 6i576yojkGUZOeSSPwMaYsNcnafTLH8u2/R4QrkdQMtHKWCexKFMw3l6egEIchlLL5Enf1o1L xG7q/lxRxrAJBBtjGCgbzPiw52grGFEjO/JCpFxDelh2hONaeeKhWqhZUsBhhRjVmPdhtpwYn 0ThOW2B+ev0QMKnu8d990GnO/HIeEZw3NORlIkOdJ0Zc6MvAIFGHxRisXyUtcz9jAfWCRko/t VOyk9BwPKJDaSicfEdOmf4XRTTKcXjZ4sFJqti3Ol1znZJC1r6zU2hdtd6w=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/Gm-sIQdObrF_Rj9MFcORMT5oMmM>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: i2rs@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Interface to The Internet Routing System \(IRS\)" <i2rs.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i2rs/>
List-Post: <mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs>, <mailto:i2rs-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 06:10:33 -0000

Hello Benoit,

I have incorporated your comments into -14 that I will post shortly.  Please
see replies inline for individual items. 

Thanks
--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise
Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2017 7:31 AM
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology@ietf.org; i2rs@ietf.org; Ladislav
Lhotka <ladislav.lhotka@nic.cz>; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-11: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dear draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology,

Checking v13 now, as the document is on the telechat in 2 days, it seems
that none of my feedback below was into account or even discussed.
The feedback below was on v11, sent on Sept 27th.

Regards, Benoit
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-11: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all 
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut 
> this introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Preliminary note: I hope I'm doing the right thing by updating this 
> DISCUSS point as  I understand that the document is back to the WG. 
> However, since I reviewed the version 11, since some of my ballot 
> points have been addressed (thank you), and since I wanted to share my 
> feedback publicly, here is my feedback.
>
> 1. The examples.
> In the AUTH48 for the RESTCONF RFC, the example YANG module discussion 
> came up (again).  And the examples in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology 
> were also discussed. Here is the feedback from one YANG doctor, from a
couple of days ago.
>
> Look at this:
>
>     module example-ietf-ospf-topology {
>       ...
>       namespace
>         "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:example-ietf-ospf-topology";
>       ...
>       description
>         "This module defines a model for OSPF network topologies.
>          Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as
>          authors of the code.
>
> They are using the IANA-controlled namespace w/o registering it.
>
> This module *really* looks like a proper normative module, rather than 
> an example.  They went to far in trying to mimic a real module.
>
> It is clear that we need more guidelines in 6087 for how to write 
> example modules.
>
> I was going to ask if this module passed YANG doctor review - then I 
> checked and saw that version -02 was reviewed, which didn't include 
> this example.  How should we (the YANG doctors) handle such a case?
>
> In this case they should:
>
>    1.  change the name to example-ospf-topology
>    2.  change the namespace to urn:example:ospf-topology
>    3.  remove the top-level statements:
>            organization, contact, revision
>
>    4.  change the top-level description to what the text in the draft
>        says:
>
>        description
>          "This module is intended as an example for how the
>           Layer 3 Unicast topology model can be extended to cover
>           OSFP topologies.";
>
> (same for the other example module)

<ALEX> done.  We only have one example module now.  </ALEX>

>
> As I mentioned to the authors, respective chairs and AD already, we 
> should follow the decision in this NETMOD email thread 
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17428.html 
> This will hopefully resolve fast. Once settled, the examples should be
updated.
>
> 4.
>
>         leaf-list router-id {
>             type inet:ip-address;
>             description
>               "Router-id for the node";
>           }
>
> My initial DISCUSS was: We don't want to wait for
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00 (btw, we 
> should expedite this publication), but any good reason why this is 
> aligned with its definition?
>      typedef router-id {
>         type yang:dotted-quad;
>         description
>           "A 32-bit number in the dotted quad format assigned to each
>            router. This number uniquely identifies the router within an
>            Autonomous System.";
>       }
>
> My NEW DISCUSS: since is in IETF LC and on the telechat on Oct 12th, 
> it makes sense to import its router-id

<ALEX> This is only used in the example.  The point of the example is to
show how the model can be extended, not to define something normative, hence
I don't think there is a need to introduce a dependency here which would
only be distracting.
</ALEX>

>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> - YANG definition "YANG: A data definition language for NETCONF"
> I would use:
>     YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data,
>     state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and notifications for network
>     management protocols [RFC7950]
>

<ALEX> done </ALEX>

> - There are multiple slightly different definitions of the datastore 
> in the different RFCs.
> Let's not add to the confusion.
> Pick one (RFC6241 should be the latest one) and mention the reference.
>
<ALEX> done (already in -13) </ALEX>
> - section 7
> OLD:
> The moodel defines
> NEW:
> The model defines
>

<ALEX> done </ALEX>
>
> .
>

_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs