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
- [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs… Benoit Claise
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Benoit Claise
- Re: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-… Alexander Clemm