Re: Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Thu, 10 March 2016 23:57 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7901712DEEB; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:57:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 vvkVxpLPAj4D; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 BA6E712DEE6; Thu, 10 Mar 2016 15:57:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u2ANvNLL059725 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:57:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165] claimed to be unnumerable.local
Subject: Re: Gen-Art LC review: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata.all@ietf.org
References: <56D60EF5.7020001@nostrum.com> <m27fhbvb07.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <56E209E3.4030805@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:57:23 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m27fhbvb07.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/9CH-x680LkiLFnnbtiPOrWlLlLE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 23:57:26 -0000


On 3/9/16 11:04 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> thanks for the review, I apologize for replying late, please see my responses inline:
>
> Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> writes:
>
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
>> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
>> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
>> like any other last call comments.
>>
>> For more information, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-04
>> Reviewer: Robert Sparks
>> Review Date: 1Mar2016
>> IETF LC End Date: 9Mar2016
>> IESG Telechat date: not yet scheduled
>>
>> Summary: Ready with nits
>>
>> 1) I might be missing something obvious, but the introduction has two
>> statements that don't seem aligned:
>>
>> " Values of annotations are not limited to strings; any YANG built-in or
>> derived type may be used for them"
>> and
>> "annotations are scalar values and cannot be further structured".
> These two statements are not in conflict: YANG data types (built-in or
> derived) apply to scalar values.
I don't know what it means for a data type to apply to a value. Can you 
say that more simply?

I think this is just a language thing, and being precise in the text 
will get past it.

Are you saying all YANG data types (built-in or derived) have only 
scalar values?

If so, you could change the second point in the document to say
"Since annotations have only built-in or derived types, they can only 
have scalar values."

But then, placing the point under "This document deliberately adopts 
some restrictions" doesn't make sense, and I suggest restructuring the 
discussion to only call out the restrictions (which appears to be to not 
place annotations on lists or leaf-lists) below that sentence.


>
>> If I'm not missing something, that may be more of an open issue than a nit.
>>
>> 2) The shepherd writeup calls out the tension in figuring out whether to
>> make this an extension or a new built-in statement. Please consider
>> capturing the reasoning for the path you chose in the draft itself.
> I will try, the main reason was that most people felt that introducing a
> new built-in statement is too big a change for the upcoming maintenance
> version of YANG (1.1) and YANG 2.0 is nowhere in sight.
>
> Thanks, Lada
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>