Re: [Lsr] Shepherd review comments on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Mon, 21 January 2019 14:02 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: lsr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF83130F88; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 06:02:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.642
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.642 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 SYDEZCUi4d5z; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 06:02:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05B68130ECD; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 06:02:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=56034; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548079327; x=1549288927; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=09WOOl2muGBr23oKFVl1U2ywyFUpKKg+crs262f4t9U=; b=TmVfG2TweRnLHwCXoj6pk64t7qs76zuRYmS0plv1trQwGa3RA8strWTJ MyUu7cBX1rp/UmtjoYsFOYRcgEzqffQqOG9W3DK/otjrgxYGTP9jPgt9B E81J/OeeCFtbKCCyo77WSa4Zm721mhsxEASuS0hsCP0/nEGB3tKgRTjFG 8=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAACfz0Vc/5FdJa1jGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ12ZoECJwqDd4gai2eCDZgBFIFnCwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BI4RJAheCSCI0CQ0BAwEBAgEBAm0cDIVKAQEBAQMjZgIBBgIRAwEBASEBBgM?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgIwFAkIAQEEARKDIgGBHWQPjySbYYEvhC4BAwMLQ4UeBYxBF4F/gRABJx+?= =?us-ascii?q?CTIMeAoEmCAESARwKEAkGEAKCUTGCJgKJSRyGDIZwiz8JAociincYgWaFLos?= =?us-ascii?q?AigSFHIg/gxcCERSBJx84ZXFwFRpLAYJBix2FP0ExAYhHgR+BHwEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,503,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="507694312"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jan 2019 14:02:04 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0LE24gi013846 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:02:04 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:02:03 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:02:03 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "stephane.litkowski@orange.com" <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>, "Yingzhen Qu" <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>, "lsr@ietf.org" <lsr@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Shepherd review comments on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29
Thread-Index: AdSvfV6+mHVGNqpKR26/bX73rx4nrAB+aTwgAAa3kgA=
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:02:03 +0000
Message-ID: <75AE4B21-D623-4B76-ADBD-18C67C9380CF@cisco.com>
References: <594D005A3CB0724DB547CF3E9A9E810B011230B1@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <19631_1548067835_5C45A3FB_19631_500_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B79151C@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <19631_1548067835_5C45A3FB_19631_500_1_9E32478DFA9976438E7A22F69B08FF924B79151C@OPEXCLILMA4.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.197]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_75AE4B21D6234B76ADBD18C67C9380CFciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.153, xch-rtp-013.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/lsr/rhlyvCBwRws9yVt9qsYmDIRLUAM>
Subject: Re: [Lsr] Shepherd review comments on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29
X-BeenThere: lsr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Link State Routing Working Group <lsr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/lsr/>
List-Post: <mailto:lsr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lsr>, <mailto:lsr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 14:02:11 -0000

Hi Stephane,
I can fix these if you check in the -31 files. The Nits problem seems rather arbitrary in flagging the “weird spacing” but I’ve had to manually modify pyang tree output in the past.
Thanks,
Acee

From: Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>;
Date: Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:50 AM
To: Yingzhen Qu <yingzhen.qu@huawei.com>;, "lsr@ietf.org"; <lsr@ietf.org>;, "draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg@ietf.org"; <draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg@ietf.org>;
Subject: RE: Shepherd review comments on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29
Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org>;
Resent-To: Stephane Litkowski <stephane.litkowski@orange.com>;, Derek Yeung <derek@arrcus.com>;, Acee Lindem <acee@cisco.com>;, Jeffrey Zhang <zzhang@juniper.net>;, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>;
Resent-Date: Monday, January 21, 2019 at 5:50 AM

Hi Yinghzen,

I have published the -31 which should fix the nits.
However the weird spacing is introduced by XML2RFC and is not coming from my source file.


From: Yingzhen Qu [mailto:yingzhen.qu@huawei.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2019 23:35
To: lsr@ietf.org; draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg@ietf.org
Subject: Shepherd review comments on draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29

Hi Authors,

Here are some comments I have based on draft version 29.

Here are the warnings from “idnits”. To resolve those unused reference issue, I’d suggest to use what’s done in the ospf model draft, beginning of Section 3.

idnits 2.16.01

/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt:
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(273): Line has weird spacing: '...-method    str...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(733): Line has weird spacing: '...-family    ian...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(1238): Code start at 1238: <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-isis@2018-12-27.yang<mailto:ietf-isis@2018-12-27.yang>".
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(5568): Line has weird spacing: '... system  recei...'
/tmp/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg-29.txt(5671): Code end at 5671: <CODE ENDS>.


  Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see
  https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info):
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 7
     longer pages, the longest (page 6) being 63 lines


  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     No issues found here.

  Miscellaneous warnings:
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  -- The document date (December 27, 2018) is 15 days in the past.  Is this
     intentional?


  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5130' is defined on line 5236, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5130]  Previdi, S., Shand, M., Ed., and C. Martin, "A Policy Con...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5305' is defined on line 5246, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5305]  Li, T. and H. Smit, "IS-IS Extensions for Traffic Enginee...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5306' is defined on line 5250, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5306]  Shand, M. and L. Ginsberg, "Restart Signaling for IS-IS",...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5880' is defined on line 5258, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5880]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5881' is defined on line 5262, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC5881]  Katz, D. and D. Ward, "Bidirectional Forwarding Detection...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6119' is defined on line 5272, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC6119]  Harrison, J., Berger, J., and M. Bartlett, "IPv6 Traffic...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC6232' is defined on line 5276, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC6232]  Wei, F., Qin, Y., Li, Z., Li, T., and J. Dong, "Purge Ori...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7794' is defined on line 5299, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC7794]  Ginsberg, L., Ed., Decraene, B., Previdi, S., Xu, X., and...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7810' is defined on line 5304, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC7810]  Previdi, S., Ed., Giacalone, S., Ward, D., Drake, J., and...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7917' is defined on line 5309, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC7917]  Sarkar, P., Ed., Gredler, H., Hegde, S., Litkowski, S., a...'

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC8405' is defined on line 5355, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text
     '[RFC8405]  Decraene, B., Litkowski, S., Gredler, H., Lindem, A., Fra...'

  ** Downref: Normative reference to an Informational RFC: RFC 5443


     Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 13 warnings (==), 1 comment (--).



Nits:

•        The draft title “protocol” should start with capital letter P.

•        I don’t think the word “container” is needed here:

420        The IS-IS configuration container is divided in:



422        o  Global parameters.



424        o  Per interface configuration (see Section 2.4).


•        Should be “raised”

978         if-state-change: raise when the state of an interface changes.

•        “the system finds”

980         corrupted-lsp-detected: raised when the system find that an LSP

981         that was stored in memory has become corrupted.

•        I’d suggest change it to “isis” container, instead of configuration container. Or maybe change it to “isis module” to be consistent with the next following paragraph.

1033        The "isis" configuration container augments the "/rt:routing/

•        Repetition of section 2.5
1049        The modules defined in this document use some groupings from ietf-
1050        keychain [RFC8177].

•        I’d suggest to change to “This YANG module” to be consistent with the beginning of the description.
1154        This YANG model conforms to the Network Management

•        Typo
4888     For IS-IS authentication, configuration is supported vua the

•        In IANA consideration, the registrant contact should be “The IESG”

4914                URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-isis

4915                Registrant Contact: IS-IS WG

4916                XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace





Thanks,

Yingzhen

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________



Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc

pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler

a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,

Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.



This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;

they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.

As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.

Thank you.