Re: [Netconf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> Fri, 12 October 2018 20:52 UTC

Return-Path: <ben@nostrum.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 8532212D4EB; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:52:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.88
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.88 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] 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 YXMylqfCSfM8; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
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 399E7128B14; Fri, 12 Oct 2018 13:52:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.1.27] (cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9CKqSdX062657 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:52:29 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from ben@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host cpe-70-122-203-106.tx.res.rr.com [70.122.203.106] claimed to be [10.0.1.27]
From: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
Message-Id: <C2E3C767-96A0-4D03-895E-4F9EB978D9D1@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D6330950-FF60-4688-9016-3DCB66DFB390"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.0 \(3445.100.39\))
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:52:28 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20181011.101114.1669790869907790694.mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <153920274822.5771.13782269202268288262.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20181011.101114.1669790869907790694.mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.100.39)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JuJPhHeH7IvOlYnb78pir3WDPO8>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 20:52:34 -0000


> On Oct 11, 2018, at 3:11 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: 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-rfc7895bis/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Just a few minor comments:
>> 
>> Substantive Comments:
>> 
>> §2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library
>> SHOULD have a revision." Why not MUST? Does it ever make sense not
>> to have a revision? What are the consequences?
> 
> In YANG, the "revision" is formally optional.  (But for IETF modules
> we have stricter rules that require a revsision.)
> 
> This bullet is part of the "Objectives" list, so I think we should
> rephrase it:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>   o  revision: Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD
>      have a revision.  This is derived from the most recent revision
>      statement within the module or submodule.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>   o  revision: If defined in the YANG module or submodule, the
>      revision is derived from the most recent revision statement
>      within the module or submodule.

That works for me, thanks.


> 
>> Editorial Comments:
>> 
>> §1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence.
> 
> I can't find this.  Can you quote the full sentence?

"All NETCONF servers supporting YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] are required to
   support YANG Library (see Section 5.6.4 of RFC 7950).”

Perhaps “support the YANG Library capability”?


> 
>> §2, list item 1: "Efficient for a client to consume." - sentence fragment.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>  1.  The information must be efficient for a client to consume.
> 
>> -- List item 3: Why is "NOT" in all-caps?
> 
> Unclear, now fixed.
> 
>> -- List item 6: The first sentence, while not technically a fragment, seems to
>> use an understood "you" as the subject. I doubt that is the intent.
> 
> NEW:
> 
>  6.  It must be possible to use the YANG library by schema mount
> 
> 
> 
> /martin