Re: [netconf] Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22: (with COMMENT)

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 30 April 2019 16:49 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF8131202ED; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:49:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 5alDIyDOU3sY; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0D41C12029C; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 09:49:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6028; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1556642983; x=1557852583; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=t9aocQcylJqowleiUiacDyZvPhRefZ9oTmeP/AurITM=; b=PHyXgnXxWG0Q+lXVlpRRm6p0D7sa0BBxYUwPUJmtVpljW+b0HwHa10al cp7lg2yRgr7uTf8QcelkkDiT3mcdXV68naELtJ/SvHKhF49HfE2RC3nTL sfHTUZBa6rWH0huxRTAs80XNnC9VAUgumfVPJcVBsmK8kVXt7sMzmppAK g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AFAADoe8hc/40NJK1mGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBghBpVDAoCoQGiByNFI4wiiAUgWcOAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?lhEgCF4YaIzQJDgEDAQEEAQECAQJtHAyFSgEBAQMBIxFFBQcEAgEIDgMEAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAgImAgICMBUFAwgCBAENBQgTgwiBew8Prn+BL4RGQYUoBoELJwGEYYZoF4F?= =?us-ascii?q?AP4ERgxI+gmECAQIBgSoBDAYBJhAhAoJQglgEiwiCN5hmXwkCggmGFYhag0M?= =?us-ascii?q?jgg2GN4xrgwmJBYZDjg4CERWBMB84ZVgRCHAVgnMBM4IbFxSITIU/QTEBkWU?= =?us-ascii?q?BDRcHgQSBIQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,414,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="541986459"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 30 Apr 2019 16:49:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x3UGngKM003813 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:49:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:49:41 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Tue, 30 Apr 2019 12:49:41 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "'The IESG'" <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push@ietf.org>, "kent+ietf@watsen.net" <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: =?utf-8?B?w4lyaWMgVnluY2tlJ3MgTm8gT2JqZWN0aW9uIG9uIGRyYWZ0LWlldGYtbmV0?= =?utf-8?Q?conf-yang-push-22:_(with_COMMENT)?=
Thread-Index: AQKKqKE9+S3wnTB+qiITRsADDzqY4wGaVvVypNy9Y8CAAAaOcA==
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:49:41 +0000
Message-ID: <d761afb4069347a1a4537b6e0c8cd3eb@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <155654356221.15895.6935060528947597341.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <A327DE47-A539-4652-B29B-0FB30DC703EE@cisco.com> <03ed01d4ff72$730837a0$5918a6e0$@clemm.org>
In-Reply-To: <03ed01d4ff72$730837a0$5918a6e0$@clemm.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.233]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.151, xch-rtp-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-8.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/0PLRi2geZr1KjpYeUHul7Nd2A2k>
Subject: Re: [netconf] =?utf-8?q?=C3=89ric_Vyncke=27s_No_Objection_on_draft-i?= =?utf-8?q?etf-netconf-yang-push-22=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:49:47 -0000

> From: Alexander Clemm, April 30, 2019 12:33 PM
> 
> Hello Eric,
> 
> Thank you for your review!  Replies inline, <ALEX>
> 
> --- Alex
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>
> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2019 6:21 AM
> To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
> Cc: netconf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push@ietf.org;
> kent+ietf@watsen.net; netconf-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: Éric Vyncke's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Please ignore my comment C3, my bad...
> 
> -éric
> 
> On 29/04/2019, 15:12, "iesg on behalf of Éric Vyncke via Datatracker" <iesg-
> bounces@ietf.org on behalf of noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
>     Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22: 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-netconf-yang-push/
> 
> 
> 
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>     Getting a streaming telemetry for changes in datastore appears quite useful.
> 
>     Please note that I did not review in depth after the section 4.
> 
>     Comments
>     --------
> 
>     C1) Out of curiosity, it is surprising for a netconf wg document to have 7
>     errors indicated by the YANG validator. Are they real errors or is the `pyang`
>     validator incorrect or missing references?
> 
> <ALEX> There is a bug in the validator, which has been encountered for a while
> and which Eric can explain.
> </ALEX>

The YANG validator errors are due to a solved bug in yanglint.   

As Kent discusses in his "draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications" shepherd writeup, the errors clear with new versions of yanglint.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications/shepherdwriteup/ 

   [SHEPHERD] `pyang` and `yanglint` were used to validate the YANG module 
   defined in this document.  Note that Datatracker shows YANG validation 
   errors, but the module validates fine on my machine (I'm using yanglint
   0.16.110, whereas DataTracker is using yanglint 0.14.80).

Eric

 
>     C2) 7 authors... the limit is usually 5 authors max. Can you justify?
> <ALEX> All of the authors have made substantial contributions to the document
> over the span of several years.  We do believe this is justified and can provide
> further explanation of each individual author's contributions if needed.
> </ALEX>
> 
>     C3) section 2. It should be RFC 8174 without citing RFC 2119.
> 
>     C4) section 3.7, why not forcing a resynch (and a patch-id of 0) rather than
>     simply rolling explicitly the patch-id to 0. The latter seems to me as prone to
>     synchronization errors.
> 
> <ALEX> We don't believe synchronization errors due to this scenario are an
> issue.  Note that the rolling back to 0 occurs only once every 4294967295
> updates, if no resynch ever occurred prior.  If an application were ever
> concerned with loss of synchronization, it could also simply request one
> manually (as opposed to being forced to, which would appear more disruptive
> than the proposed solution).
> </ALEX>
> 
>     Nits
>     ----
> 
>     N1) unsure why all Cisco Systems authors are not grouped together
> 
> <ALEX> Over the course of the document, some author affiliations have
> changed </ALEX>
>     N2) "Xpath": should be described (or having a reference) before first use in
>     section 3.6
> 
> <ALEX> Added the following brief explanation at the first occurrence:  "(XPath is
> a query language for selecting nodes in an XML document.) "
> </ALEX>
>     N3) a couple of "yang" in lowercase while I believe "YANG" is always written in
>     uppercase
> <ALEX> Updated many of those, except where used e.g. in file names. </ALEX>
> 
> 
>