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

"Alexander Clemm" <ludwig@clemm.org> Tue, 17 October 2017 05:48 UTC

Return-Path: <ludwig@clemm.org>
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 32A0A1320CF; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:48:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.42
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.42 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5] autolearn=no 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 ZT3e0o5VplfF; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:48:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.197]) (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 E2EAF132924; Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:48:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LAPTOPR7T053C2 ([73.71.191.170]) by mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus003 [74.208.5.2]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LZfxK-1dNKPL162W-00lTGw; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 07:48:23 +0200
From: "Alexander Clemm" <ludwig@clemm.org>
To: "'Kent Watsen'" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, <netmod@ietf.org>
Cc: <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, <draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org>
References: <DE7DEC2E-F737-4020-8830-AF556A65EEF5@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <DE7DEC2E-F737-4020-8830-AF556A65EEF5@juniper.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 22:48:27 -0700
Message-ID: <001701d3470b$8f473fe0$add5bfa0$@clemm.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Content-Language: en-us
Thread-Index: AQKaYVkzfTaR4o9Av0E1iNvM3K8NkaFZVEYg
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:zGPiDHcd+Rik8PuAn5pIhohpcka7FmcUL2X/ThLmZj/7OrSce6u k1d/Ji4YdR/f2Y7d0fkOiLQbdiJ9S6+B4OLEkYCMRgdT3pBu8WliNW078prjeez8w5nQQsG Q8UWT4rErhS6agCdFpc3raaMmWQjdolfRLznfqodtDDj9Qz/INndjWjONNNA6lwj5CXWG2U 7kn7gdqn8iffwPxeQdQ7w==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:L8vGny+83CI=:lzSTbyCVL6HUDsbd1Qhxl/ z2Ydem9Fu6x5PKGawWuYMSRWH8e1CWsiftkHeoOrShNrT9oEWGxjnQiXA6PJc5Q7OsyWPboLr rYcyWaQSMVVbH1NlR/TYJrsAjzCy8BZwU21VckuvqazE1X9naTnt8ipakkJ0WIA3VzSoeQvXt XeyJLSM+Z673AxEBvSp/uG3tAQU4uQMHqIlaaduVXBUe4S9IV7xpFThcJkSff7sTDZ9kosibC 5Jtr03mp3NvXBSUKgNoZozfblVWjtEG1s2pmguBKeyiTMZRI0krgER/pqmuWe9NKIiPX+C7a3 QNKwoh/94/r2/n4qPBXMVeRztJjxP+OtOwT9bk74htYYhu5kUuusCXrkxTs5F/WbroZdArYFt DlQNAogwEZy4+g5qf/i8o8GawSib5V1TZJVhGPvs2c5ACLiPkCY/SRcx6x+recy4nM6KvLXJh qRZb5iZd4t2F0rkevGT6kvyvxsVF4cli5/SfYq/HYR0E34lzgDuunnFgaylTUUAFkQCxDwMNB ZXIZrRPgYORZwjnYmC51DtHFFZ0bz14n+q6tolawzQVNKqf8Y9EyJvn8xPIXU5AFAf0Y8ntjS dXFS4kc6g6psB4H8bce+to89kshfdMLUkKGw39KiyUrsRwoeX1QCNPE6e7jzmPTdRSXUn5YAW OucYW08FugdNXwKn9in58nWWiXs/wCOTj/OpJUH+QQSESjUzMzrDkoszsK0XjFwc57v3ktHOl km56OEdNRaUg2YDp9XNuZm8G2u/KxpEyfJ7B/bE5wq1CWsPHGaeckNjfUx4=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/61vjTrvjOFZFWkOWlJkMA8aDxSo>
Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 05:48:27 -0000

(Resending, apologies in case of duplicates)

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://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14

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://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod