Re: [netmod] js review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Wed, 11 April 2018 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
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 24E9F127419 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:00:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
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 lVzzUydfFtxb for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy9-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com [69.89.20.122]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AC4D120725 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:00:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw3 (unknown [10.0.90.84]) by gproxy9.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60941ED1DB for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:45:14 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([69.89.31.113]) by cmgw3 with id Z2lB1x00G2SSUrH012lEd1; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:45:14 -0600
X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.2 cv=cY2iljLM c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:117 a=h1BC+oY+fLhyFmnTBx92Jg==:17 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=Kd1tUaAdevIA:10 a=u07AKapRAAAA:8 a=48vgC7mUAAAA:8 a=NTp5IrceRaw5W7r2xfQA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=SkebfZ6J2Mmvk2rLHZle:22 a=w1C3t2QeGrPiZgrLijVG:22
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version :Date:Message-ID:References:Cc:To:Subject:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=YoXavlhXCTaMPgByT801Z47Io4AkIgthpejjFxALv28=; b=PNdhIZ6bYMhgjGIenylvcWQUKY KAf/xOzHsf8HY+6TNzgD+qBM0SzRvOXRKGqTkUGgqj9LOe93gFWgZ9UbpJnJVldlUVGDQZj4CYLQ1 oss/aLBhmRpxtNosEk5QUlMFU;
Received: from pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([100.15.86.101]:35176 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.89_1) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1f6Gzn-004NI7-2w; Wed, 11 Apr 2018 08:45:11 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
References: <20180410143416.4y5wofkhr67wxxo4@elstar.local> <20180410.225800.2211357338649569621.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180411062021.i6h2c3z3kf4otae7@elstar.local> <20180411.084642.1344446330417036664.mbj@tail-f.com>
Message-ID: <73dff261-9e2f-fe57-c895-b1922212ee29@labn.net>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2018 10:45:10 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180411.084642.1344446330417036664.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-IP: 100.15.86.101
X-Exim-ID: 1f6Gzn-004NI7-2w
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-86-101.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.86.101]:35176
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 3
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/6x4lvzV1UW49btc11UdDXBfKq-0>
Subject: Re: [netmod] js review of draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09
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, 11 Apr 2018 15:00:12 -0000

Hi,
	I have a suggested minor clarification below.


----------
On April 11, 2018 2:47:24 AM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:

> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 10:58:00PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>> > Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; wrote:
>> > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 04:15:46PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
...
>> > Ok.  How about adding two sentences at the end of the last paragraph
>> > in section 3.3, giving:
>> >
>> >   The mounted schema is determined at run time: every instance of the
>> >   mount point that exists in the operational state MUST contain a copy
>> >   of YANG library data that defines the mounted schema exactly as for
>> >   a top-level schema. A client is expected to retrieve this data from
>> >   the instance tree, possibly after creating the mount point.  In the
>> >   "inline" case, instances of the same mount point MAY use different
>> >   mounted schemas, whereas in the "shared-schema" case, all instances
>> >   MUST use the same mounted schema.  In the "inline" case, if two
>> >   instances have the same YANG library checksum it is not guaranteed
>> >   that the YANG library contents are equal for these instances.
>>
>> This text says "A client is expected to retrieve this data from the
>> instance tree, possibly after creating the mount point.", which seems
>> a bit odd. How does a client create a mount point? First, a mount
>> point is created by defining it in a YANG module, so this is
>> specification time not runtime. Perhaps you mean 'instantiated' rather
>> than 'created' but even then it is somewhat unclear how a client does
>> that in general. Perhaps simple drop ', possibly after creating the
>> mount point'.
>
> Ok, I will do that.
>

I suggest adding to text to make it unambiguous that the MUST applies to 
the same mount point nodes in a schema, perhaps:
OLD
    all instances MUST
NEW
    all instances of the same mount point MUST

Lou

>
> /martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>