Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

Hi Kent

Two quick replies, inline, <ALEX>

Thanks
--- Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:30 AM
> To: Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>; netmod@ietf.org
> Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> > (Resending, apologies in case of duplicates)
> 
> Resending? This is the first time I'm seeing these.  Did you send them when
> the Last Call was open before?  The Last Call closed a couple weeks ago  ;)

<ALEX> I suspected there was a problem with my mailer.  So I am glad I resent them. No, the comments are "fresh", not from weeks ago
</ALEX>

> 
> I don't want to reopen rfc6087bis for anything less than Errata at this point (or
> promoting it to a BCP, but that's a different thing altogether).  It seems that
> some of your suggestions could go into the new "guidelines-next" issue
> tracker [1].  We may also consider adding information to the FAQ [2].
> Regarding Security Considerations, I think that a "node" can be the root of a
> subtree, and the rubbery- ness is likely from [3] and can be addressed
> separately.

<ALEX> I saw other comments on the list just yesterday, and was encouraged off-line to send my comments and also to review more documents;-)  so I just went ahead and did.  Sure, I have no problems to not hold up the draft - as commented on the other thread, I would like to see drafts progress faster, not slower, even if it means some churn further down the road.  That said, I do think that guidelines re: RPC modeling, and extending/augmenting groupings are currently lacking and needing improvement at some point.  

Re: rubbery-ness, no, this is taken from this draft, not from 6087.  

--- Alex
</ALEX>

> 
> [1] https://github.com/netmod-wg/guidelines-next/issues
> [2] https://github.com/netmod-wg/FAQ/wiki
> [3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-security-guidelines
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Kent // shepherd
> 
> 
> 
> I have reviewed some parts of the draft and have just a few comments as
> well:
> 
> -	One area where guidelines are missing, but where guidance would
> be
> needed, concerns how to model return values from RPCs, as well as how to
> model the handling of RPC error conditions.  This is an area where I think
> YANG itself could need some improvement, and in its absence good
> guidelines would be even more important.
> -	It would be also useful to provide guidelines regarding how to
> augment/extend groupings.  This is a common scenario and what to do is not
> necessarily intuitive, so I am sure many users would appreciate guidelines
> here.
> -	Section 3.4: It would be good to provide a guideline regarding lines
> that exceed 70 columns (from the pyang tree output), at least mention that
> authors need to manually address this issue
> -	Section 3.7: Personally, I think the security considerations as
> currently stated, while well-intended, introduce a bit too much red tape.
> Specifically, this concerns having to list nodes individually - this can lead to
> defining many "trees" while missing the "forest".  The guidelines are a bit
> "rubbery" here, by the way, stating that data nodes MUST be individually
> listed and discussed, at the same time only if they "could be especially
> disruptive" - what does that mean - so maybe the requirement should simply
> be a "SHOULD" here?
> -	Observation: there is no mention/guideline canonical order of YANG
> statements.
> 
> Thanks
> --- Alex
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod [mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:22 AM
> To: netmod@ietf.org
> Cc: netmod-chairs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org
> Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14
> 
> 
> This starts a two-week working group last call on:
> 
>     Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents
>     https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc6087bis-
> 2D14&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m
> =iR7m1fbjxuH4HW0Ws7SS-
> jWBlHsFIVCZEbG2vxMtmno&s=mQRtxCYVsN0ttmets8w-8a-
> VBh3vh9rJj_NJVhtGa4k&e=
> 
> Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns.
> 
> We are particularly interested in statements of the form:
>   * I have reviewed this draft and found no issues.
>   * I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues: ...
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> NETMOD WG Chairs
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuh
> r6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m
> =iR7m1fbjxuH4HW0Ws7SS-
> jWBlHsFIVCZEbG2vxMtmno&s=NeFF02cR18ZWLxBX0kSsjAolx0QUWN4ChF3_
> GJc9WMc&e=
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod