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

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Adam Roach <[e-mail]> 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