Re: [Last-Call] [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-06

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hi Lada,
>
> Thank you for your review!
>
> Below are responses to your comments.
>
> K.
>
>> On Apr 12, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
>> Review result: Ready with Nits
>> 
>> The document defines two YANG modules - ietf-http-client and ietf-http-server -
>> that belong to a relatively complex set of modules. The modules are well
>> designed and nicely documented, both in the descriptions and document text.
>
>  :)
>
>
>> **** Comments
>> 
>> - Sections 2.1.3 and 3.1.3: the sentence 'The "..." module does not contain any
>> protocol-accessible nodes.' is misleading in that the modules do define data
>> nodes that are intended to be protocol accessible after the corresponding
>> grouping is used. I know this is a part of the NETCONF/YANG lingo, but another
>> formulation that clearly says what's going on might be preferable.
>
> I fixed this when I addressed the same comment made in the “tcp-client-server” draft.

OK

>
>
>
>> - Sections 2.2 and 3.2: the XML snippets use document elements "http-client"
>> and "http-server", but these containers are not defined in the corresponding
>> modules. This is confusing, my suggestion is to rewrite the examples in the
>> JSON representation where no such top-level node is necessary.
>
> Same solution as for the “tcp-client-server” draft, which is to simply remove the first and last lines, for the non-existent “container” statement.
>
> Update: I was going to proactively-apply the same solution to the “ssh” and “tls” drafts, but I couldn’t because the top-level element defines additional prefixes.  This is where your “JSON” idea could help, though, for some reason, having a mix of XML/JSON in the suite of drafts is off-putting to me.  We could convert all the examples to JSON, but that’s a fair amount of work too…

If you already have that "foobar-usage.yang" module, you could possibly translate these snippets automatically using the "jsonxsl" plugin of pyang.

I also think that JSON examples are easier to parse for a human reader.

>
> How about adding an XML-comment indicating that the top-level element doesn’t really exist?

Yes, as I wrote in the other review, some explanation might suffice.

Lada

>
>
>> - Placeholders BBBB, CCCC and EEEE are defined in Editorial Note but never used
>
> Fixed.
>
>
>> **** Nits
>> 
>> - RFC 7950 is cited repeatedly (4 times) in a general context, e.g. whenever
>> YANG 1.1 is mentioned. It should suffice to use the citation at the first
>> appearance.
>
> Fixed.  Also in the “ssh” and “tls” drafts.
>
>
> K.
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67