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

Hi Benoit,

OK, will use you suggested text below.

Thanks,
Mach

From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:08 PM
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>; t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>; Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org; IESG <iesg@ietf.org>; shares@ndzh.com; i2rs-chairs@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

Dear all,

On this topic, we tried to have a consistent section for all recently published RFCs.
1.x<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8343#section-1.3>.  Tree Diagrams

   Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in

   [RFC8340<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8340>].
Ex: rfc8343

Regards, Benoit

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your comments!

It will be fixed in the upcoming version-11.

Best regards,

Mach

-----Original Message-----

From: t.petch [mailto:ietfc@btconnect.com]

Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 PM

To: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in><mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>; Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com><mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>

Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org><mailto:iesg@ietf.org>; i2rs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org>;

i2rs-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs-chairs@ietf.org>; shares@ndzh.com<mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto: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><mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>; Alissa Cooper

<alissa@cooperw.in><mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>; The IESG <iesg@ietf.org><mailto:iesg@ietf.org>

Cc: i2rs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org>;

i2rs-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs-chairs@ietf.org>;

shares@ndzh.com<mailto: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><mailto:mach.chen@huawei.com>

To: "Alissa Cooper" <alissa@cooperw.in><mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>; "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org><mailto:iesg@ietf.org>

Cc: <i2rs@ietf.org><mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org><mailto:draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org>;

<i2rs-chairs@ietf.org><mailto:i2rs-chairs@ietf.org>; <shares@ndzh.com><mailto: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><mailto:iesg@ietf.org>

Cc: i2rs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org>;

i2rs-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs-chairs@ietf.org>;

shares@ndzh.com<mailto: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 mailing list

i2rs@ietf.org<mailto:i2rs@ietf.org>

https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs