IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 07 February 2018 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6412F12D86C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:49:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 UahrMtuR9t7l for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:49:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x232.google.com (mail-lf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::232]) (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 C771E12D84D for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:49:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id q17so2551232lfa.9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:49:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=wii3HEaYpO17+r8yhGaEcGNaPa4ZnuEGA+qgwE9m0DE=; b=FLcOOWDc3jwPdzMEBRTsF6I73N1fhaTpoQuJ7U/97QJXqTgjvbMH4ncw2H81ijqDbn SiqJFBjGT2Qy0XLQLDi4RxYIl30hSFXAYiJbLGNeUx9ceW8k5ODHNrW+MpzglltZ9ZZ0 RsZoDGk3m70yqt//tIwQjog8zfdi/JdlDd0b7lQJuyFJVUd/CNPaPgAezChI6ViYIy2p 0iexmZhNaTwiP1buQSX+O7Bb6mBa3sxLBdhHFUAmmNiOl0LE/tTz7PPB8u/anHopkDiV A+GYRb3tFD+3/b3mIA2326BJUIagQt3j+JluZHhgkVkEPIKGNOo4Cs1UdKxsOJ5rxXFR 3plA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=wii3HEaYpO17+r8yhGaEcGNaPa4ZnuEGA+qgwE9m0DE=; b=TlSLESIoiWp97xpsReAwJj0mcNhK7blSWqTUfY2B2MG++HsRXTzk67Kf5Ws7XDqaXI 2apAj0PJOGt+uz3HoYQFvxtw1T+Q27cMPuxB+E5KwPDtHRWXCdOO+hMMF8bSdtMRfJX+ rgqWM0UxfiYhNP+2mdizGHvFdest9LqVisSXU4y3idWoLC54UTd2rurQiDfWYWi5GpJy dfEmGiRTmAsljW7VlOOfeCsgtfwXgbkogb2BlIaRqQJpEUJkx+0MLwqFz9QoZFQA3fZc eM8fg+xRedUEsV+8MhkQP0Ki/2O6tC9TxTW+dsONUvkgULp7lATgiDBPIqtCIQ0XmtLt zj9g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPB2YjRSypKbIag/Gw3qX4AF3xu3k2gX3i2afyxBaV5/QfwX8gxa ySa8LJ+hgENO2LcfDszZyb50/OnI5crjVo6QfioPOg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x226DJ4kUed7xVLG55nF7nOlbVtK9lB7V6lZaXoqQmq/F2QKiQ3/WUH1LGaZeqs/tQLI/HQk1h558sCXKadl97Ac=
X-Received: by 10.46.22.30 with SMTP id w30mr4502921ljd.91.1518025738933; Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:48:58 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.143.6 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Feb 2018 09:48:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <01f501d3a013$72e66180$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
References: <e1f4f27a-d982-b248-f0e1-7093dc2f63e8@cisco.com> <6f96ec70-1532-5d99-97d1-5d5531e7865e@cisco.com> <6BAC6B11-90A9-4CA1-AE53-FFAC084FB76E@juniper.net> <5c2ae0a9-b4b9-3d13-395e-1c779f99f941@cisco.com> <01f501d3a013$72e66180$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 09:48:58 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHRQZ7+9t4+q_qPjpcc0PP6amAYLG8tvLc6BeBzcPoBCvA@mail.gmail.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f403045fb506edec620564a2e8dc"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/00BrAUzCQWUBaBZL-kQH-EFWex4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2018 17:49:03 -0000

On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:58 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Andy
>
> If an RFC is mentioned in a Description clause, should it also appear in
> the related Reference clause?
>

yes -- there are many places in 6087bis that mention the reference-stmt

e.g.:

   If the notification semantics are defined in an external document
   (other than another YANG module indicated by an import statement),
   then a reference statement MUST be present.


I cannot find any text that says it is OK or not OK to also put
the reference in the description-stmt.




> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-05 has examples of this not being the case,
> as I mention in a recent post.  I assumed that they should be but cannot
> see any discussion of this in RFC6087bis
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
Andy

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email