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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 09:02 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 92019130DD0; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:02:22 -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 IbKfBjhBdASe; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34EEF130E5E; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9332E1AE0310; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:02:17 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:02:16 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20181011.110216.379747718915955121.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: adam@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: <153921956365.5895.2867315554651220798.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <153921956365.5895.2867315554651220798.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/tPb8Y2zM3aIyAmmJq-m5wpKSN28>
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: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:02:23 -0000

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