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

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Wed, 17 October 2018 14:51 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@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 D6131130DDE; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 cGQmig6gIDoG; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:44 -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 EB5FF130DD5; Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w9HEpeun083952 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:51:41 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
References: <153921956365.5895.2867315554651220798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <20181011.110216.379747718915955121.mbj@tail-f.com> <20181017.093604.305651280829203060.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <da4390a3-b74a-1676-623b-a4133e93cfc8@nostrum.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:51:34 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20181017.093604.305651280829203060.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/LP6gDkxnO6jdDO_4NrSfDD95SBA>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Adam Roach'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: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:51:46 -0000

Thanks!

/a

On 10/17/18 2:36 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After discussion among the authors and in the WG, the name "checksum"
> has now been changed to "YANG library content identifier", or
> "content-id" for short.
>
> I have uploaded a new version of the draft with this change (and also
> a new version of the dependant document
> draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf)
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
> Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> wrote:
>>> Adam Roach 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:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Thanks for the work everyone did on this document.
>>>
>>> ID Nits reports:
>>>
>>>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)
>>>    ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)
>> Fixed.
>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Page 16:
>>>
>>>>       leaf checksum {
>>>>         type string;
>>>>         mandatory true;
>>>>         description
>>>>           "A server-generated checksum of the contents of the
>>>>            'yang-library' tree.  The server MUST change the value of
>>>>            this leaf if the information represented by the
>>>>            'yang-library' tree, except 'yang-library/checksum', has
>>>>            changed.";
>>> I suspect that changing the name of this node in the tree would be disruptive
>>> at this point in time, but this is clearly not a checksum ("There is no
>>> requirement that the same information always results in the same 'checksum'
>>> value"). I would suggest updating the description to use the term "version
>>> identifier" or something similar.
>> Since so many people brought this up, I will go back to WG and propose
>> a name change for this leaf.  "YANG library content version
>> identifier" or "leaf version-id" for short.
>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> §8.2:
>>>
>>>>   [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
>>>>              BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
>>>>              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.
>>> Since this document is required to understand the syntax used in the tree
>>> diagrams used by this document, it should be normative rather than
>>> informative.
>> This has been discussed in the WG (NETMOD, who produced RFC 8340), and
>> the conclusion was to have the tree diagram reference as an
>> Informative reference.  The diagrams are a way to illustrate the
>> structure of the YANG module.  The YANG module is the authoritative
>> source.  You will find this in all YANG RFCs > 8340, and all current
>> drafts.  (except I just found that 8341 is missing the reference
>> completely...)
>>
>>
>> /martin
>>
>>
>>