Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

---- Original Message -----
From: "Mach Chen" <[e-mail]>
To: "Alissa Cooper" <[e-mail]>; "The IESG" <[e-mail]>
Cc: <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>;
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:23 AM

> Hi Alissa,
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> Please see my responses inline...
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: i2rs [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:10 PM
> > To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
[e-mail];
> > [e-mail]
> > Subject: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10:
> > (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: No Objection
> >
> > 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-rib-data-model/
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Sec 1.2:
> >
> > "YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG
module,
> >    and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
> >    structure."
> >
> > This document does not seem like an appropriate place to have
normative
> > guidance about this. And if this sentence is removed, I don't see
the point of
> > including Section 1.2 otherwise. This would also imply deleting the
reference to
> > I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams.
>
> This results from a YANG doctor review.  I saw it also occurs in other
published documents. I personally think it's no harm to keep it, how do
you think?

Mach

I think that this is very odd.

YANG guidelines rfc6087bis says
"   YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG
module,
   and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
   structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
"
which I think is the correct guidance in the correct place.

A quick look at the recently published RFC8343, RFC8344, RFC8345,
RFC8346 contain no text of the kind you suggest so if it occurs in other
I-D, then I would regard those other I-D as being in error.

If I look back at a thread from Ebben for a yang doctor review of an
earlier version of this I-D, the text I see proposed is

"
>    A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
>    this document.  The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
>    defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
"
which I think is rather different.

Tom Petch
(not a YANG doctor)

> >
> > Sec 2.1: Again here I'm confused about the use of normative
language. Why do
> > you need to specify normative requirements for what this very
document is
> > specifying? Or are these supposed to be requirements on
implementations?
>
> OK, how about this:
>
> "...a RIB data model needs to specify a way for an external entity to
learn about the functional capabilities of a network device." And
>
> " The RIB data model needs a way to expose the nexthop chaining
capability supported by a given network device."
>
> >
> > Sec 2.5: s/causes/caused/
>
> Done
>
> The above updates will be reelected in version-11.
>
> Thanks,
> Mach
> >