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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 08:11 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 D2315130E4B; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:11:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 mesmMbtw-Fya; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:11:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD852130E46; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:11:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 69BD31AE0310; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:11:15 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:11:14 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20181011.101114.1669790869907790694.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: ben@nostrum.com
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis@ietf.org, mjethanandani@gmail.com, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <153920274822.5771.13782269202268288262.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153920274822.5771.13782269202268288262.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/eIaGNnfFSj07Uim7h9A3YV4ktRk>
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: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:11:19 -0000

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.

> Editorial Comments:
> 
> §1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence.

I can't find this.  Can you quote the full sentence? 

> §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