Re: [netmod] ACL (-18) issues found during shepherd write-up

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Fri, 27 April 2018 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 D39D012778D; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:12:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 3pOmC7Wt2t88; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:12:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x232.google.com (mail-pf0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::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 F3960126D85; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x232.google.com with SMTP id j11so2126311pff.10; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JOMqtNiM/62uSL2pHg/TVlR8N4+iLOAcTnuzpXgYv5k=; b=eMtqGKBBQgyL+GhnbAQuGCG/1E7YjueUtyhi4dTmZs+ss93qO25rYlLQFE8Kl08D6I 9C1Ur7uQKJ+Z5NUSPnW2+2gH/wxwG0a3ybEMBt/y389V7hQ/E3G7/ldvhRuFT+4VQKnh 2aUg3H2nSBGDi4TTQzhEsd1oRSSG+8B0MLVd/cUlbpjqwezUQStnJdrirfUsI9C+U9Nf W9+llaSsYI2CDhaNs5GNEjOjauHw+C4riQaZtOUaDvFahRM6D5gO1F0+2NOS6WAs3E3/ mMdYVk9qjcB7OK/j9OpuTGinjOwU5m1NteDJnuLZtCr2w9J2bA99cM5uDKvV84ywhBYB g7aQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=JOMqtNiM/62uSL2pHg/TVlR8N4+iLOAcTnuzpXgYv5k=; b=HwenuN9KN8Z9x+ehviyAWRWhuYzpMqHrcxBEx0AS2CCASAJoK6U83e9Ybri6gPvizX 7qm6TBF55Ex9uYD2PDTXfsoF7UPFXYB142EJW+/67CAbt6rxurgxEhoLqw5fx9YdE10J dg7pQpbrkH//CxctlYk7fFgbUTRpQTd4Mx7i7aLyeBN74QnEoWAUiCFdodKiWstqyoGi 9H2w2TNDUmKR9YmtmV5TRe9gXB4TTGPYdTNsuYNC3kcKWVucyD0pv+ivnfAaO8DBQw5H n/r3EhlnUujpgvSf7IvKM0a7HNKlrCtJa6tAflTYHtFh9Fcckhvas2++wcmlo10owdPv ISeg==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALQs6tDGpv+H6wxDKy5eN1A+kOPPRwafrrG1X8iwPjvec/pv3YXFrWKF 8T3S2LtkL66MiEEbnNbcxRH8KTn6
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZpYoHfPu9VaNvMh9BVwrXu0zycyb1M3TMyEoewKTLLf2N4exa0UkOH/emMW6kO4hHm6Hes/eA==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:5481:: with SMTP id e1-v6mr3268591pli.137.1524856344560; Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:647:4700:1280:c404:7136:37e6:4e4a? ([2601:647:4700:1280:c404:7136:37e6:4e4a]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v15sm4100832pfa.116.2018.04.27.12.12.23 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:12:24 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <528EB5B2-E031-49FB-8348-B27C0FA6B718@juniper.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 12:12:22 -0700
Cc: "draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F514C9D9-495D-41B1-AC77-B13290F785BA@gmail.com>
References: <528EB5B2-E031-49FB-8348-B27C0FA6B718@juniper.net>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/0D7w6PzOeYH7EvBkELlJaP-ihgw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] ACL (-18) issues found during shepherd write-up
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: Fri, 27 Apr 2018 19:12:27 -0000

Kent,


> On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:18 PM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>; wrote:
> 
> Authors,
> 
> Just a few minor things found while going through the shepherd checklist. These won't block the write-up, but should be fixed before we submit for publication.  For now, the write-up will explain that these will be fixed, and I'll clear these comments as soon as an update is posted:
> 
> 1) Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 should be RFC 8341

Updated.

> 
> 2) Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis has been published
>   as RFC 8343

Updated.

> 
> 3) Outdated reference: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams has been 
>   published as RFC 8340

Updated.

> 
> 4) some artwork has the comment "[note: '\' line wrapping for formatting
>   only]" even when there are no folded lines in the artwork.  [hint, 
>   only use the ",<column>" version of the INSERT macro for artwork that
>   you know contains a long line, or fix the macro to be smart enough to
>   only insert the header when needed]

Removed the note.

> 
> 5) it is good to see that now the 'reference' statements now follow the
>   "number: title" convention, but many of the "titles" are not the 
>   actual title of the referenced draft, as they should be.

The titles use well known acronyms like IPv6, TCP and ICMP. Anyway, I have expanded it to the full title.

> 
> 6) The document has examples using IPv4 documentation addresses according
>   to RFC6890, but does not use any IPv6 documentation addresses.  Maybe
>   there should be IPv6 examples, too?

Added an IPv6 example.

> 
> 7) I question if all the normative references are really normative. For
>   instance, RFCs 3688, 5246, 6020, 6241, 6242, 6536, 8040 stand out as
>   not needing to be normative.

Moved them to informative section with 6535 updated to 8341.

> 
> 8) Section 2, 1st paragraph: s/YANG/YANG 1.1/?

Done.

> 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent
> 
> 

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com