IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 13:57 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 42FC4120219; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 05:57:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 ImMiWypyB7eE; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 05:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52CE8120814; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 05:57:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D02121AE049B; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:57:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 14:56:54 +0100
Message-Id: <20191104.145654.1893092470951786518.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: bill.wu@huawei.com
Cc: netconf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA93E63DA@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA93E63DA@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/nBc00SBbGW8PMG1JohitBrSLHv0>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05
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: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 13:57:36 -0000

Hi,

Trimming to open issues...

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
> Thanks Martin, see reply inline below.
> 
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] 

> o  Abstract and Introduction
> 
>   These both contain:
> 
>     The reset operation may be used e.g. during initial
>     zero-touch configuration 
> 
>   and in the Introduction there's a reference to RFC 8572.
> 
>   But what does this actually mean?
> [Qin]: It means the key word zero-touch comes from RFC8572.

I get that part.  I was wondering about the meaning of the sentence.
How can "reset" be used "during initial zero-touch configuration"?


> o  Section 4
> 
>   The YANG module contains the boilerplate text from RFC 8174, but the
>   module doesn't use 8174-language, so I suggest the boilerplate text
>   is removed.
> [Qin]: "MAY" key word is used in this draft, I am not sure to remove boilerplate text.

But MAY isn't used in the *YANG module*.  The boilerplate in section
1.1 should stay, but the boilerplate in the YANG module should be
removed.



/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email