Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)
"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Wed, 11 April 2018 18:01 UTC
Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
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 A5EF9129502 for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:01:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.945
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.945 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845] autolearn=no 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 QOvAHDBtdKdF for <i2rs@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:01:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (50-245-122-97-static.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [50.245.122.97]) (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 2757B128D2E for <i2rs@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 11:01:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=107.92.120.167;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: "'t.petch'" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org
References: <152276819613.22739.3895944015063617381.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2923A8146@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <00d801d3cf2e$92becf20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2923A828A@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <A95FA006-D2C1-46E7-8D6E-85C1613A0DED@cooperw.in> <011801d3d176$90dc9e40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <011801d3d176$90dc9e40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 14:01:06 -0400
Message-ID: <011301d3d1bf$10e6b470$32b41d50$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQGaPyxkPDbyGdF7yadUUUstfBcVZwMWvGGkAcL9pqECmtwzEQGVgS7BAbPYW+WkGRAyMA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i2rs/hsPFfz9DFkohk5xpn4hsyrHitXQ>
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with 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: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 18:01:20 -0000
Tom - thank you for your continued review of this work! Sue Hares -----Original Message----- From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Mach Chen Cc: IESG; i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; shares@ndzh.com Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT) Mach One additional thought on tree diagrams. This is now RFC8340 and YANG guidelines 6087bis section 3.4 says " If YANG tree diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be included in the document. " whereas you currently have it as a Normative Reference (well, perhaps two related thoughts:-( Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:50 PM > On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com] >> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:42 PM >> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>; Alissa Cooper >> <alissa@cooperw.in>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; >> shares@ndzh.com >> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data- >> model-10: (with COMMENT) >> >> ---- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mach Chen" <mach.chen@huawei.com> >> To: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in>; "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org> >> Cc: <i2rs@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org>; >> <i2rs-chairs@ietf.org>; <shares@ndzh.com> >> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:23 AM >> >>> Hi Alissa, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments! >>> >>> Please see my responses inline... >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:10 PM >>>> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org> >>>> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org; >> i2rs-chairs@ietf.org; >>>> shares@ndzh.com >>>> 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. > > Indeed, my fault, I just checked Ebben's suggestion, it's as above quoted. > > To Alissa: > If change to following text, is it OK for you? > > "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].” Yes, thanks. Alissa > > > Best regards, > Mach >> >> 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 >>>> >
- [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Mach Chen
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… t.petch
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Mach Chen
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Alissa Cooper
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… t.petch
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Susan Hares
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Mach Chen
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Benoit Claise
- Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-… Mach Chen