Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 07 March 2018 05:15 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 0EC2712711E for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 p570-i4rWffY for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:15:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x230.google.com (mail-lf0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::230]) (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 974FE126D73 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:15:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x230.google.com with SMTP id l191-v6so1380724lfe.1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 21:15:54 -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=AKfY49dBkNmd7GjeSghsxAWc6uZBhxDQEuqublyHxRM=; b=Q0Dsbjx0Xzl9AB2HbbKHw/43REfu5hHqXQAMcDpK/X17A0UhJgIqwPv7vuT/jkn+Ya 33eo5uH5U1z3tfHaziMHO7m/w16hUINQ8lRNCqcBhEpo3Jc5ZMdXjyxAPqbtK1Ba4v49 x3xPAKpYqEa2kgefhIrPOlBNlZtglBZKskWuBy/RzGETGCU/OHExxwQACiWHnqpud4Zu wnKCIqKkmWpNHbnlqp0vA/rKIxmGIC0cntFcBmDCSVkqLj7s4Rjv2MSLbk6YgizYD0Z/ NK3EYbqAi0d+XHYjRkA4uSFarpO1ibCAvUdTkC4/rqJC+Vrx96s6YvOFTVmWkRLM8lr8 aCbg==
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=AKfY49dBkNmd7GjeSghsxAWc6uZBhxDQEuqublyHxRM=; b=eDQ5FZOpiX7bNBr28ZozaKpSXDee/SE2PCr/UON9AkwTceX1S5bzUluvQRoPSC+CxO SgrhpAB95xyDfXd0wgjbHYWHu240/2jl6aFAM8mk40L/nXnY+eE3gPolDVQ8LQS8XN3U tFi4KMZlp0BKfq+wMG4tVrnn9PvEBNotSAVzUHMHv/9iud0OMs/N9+cx0BIAO7fWRe0s HcE90KsbgeEVE1AAzVwZbcOVrbEgOub3ZCyaxQuXwXoc1Oxv3PA3Dezs1uwuzG9GsRSP 8iEPGNsYc2sFRksCbaiQFDWUEgHs6WeDTaNGAK5l/Ix6IkICoxhddDvNbN3aSsmKYrEG QYbw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GfyVlj/wUrj3OdPKtIBfpF45hDf87sCV8NXpYlhTOfpIJMvPxV J9WsPm4vgOAkKe5JGoTRdq0OQ2FyjOuFCHZB1jgIDQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt1DxuIIoxvnu4T0I/7iREDXx5S6/SkpjiyuyPvZ3ITzWbZ3gTSwLV1DvAtQ8ETm6zKf0+8UC7U6gyafBTC/Kg=
X-Received: by 10.46.117.12 with SMTP id q12mr15509957ljc.65.1520399752654; Tue, 06 Mar 2018 21:15:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.21.210 with HTTP; Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:15:51 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <152039784116.17621.12389822772400710157.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <152039784116.17621.12389822772400710157.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 21:15:51 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHT+GDL_KBcpfX5kxXT+P9tQTVQiR5LcBCkXPzQHEoJGYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org, NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e082b13142c87a80566cba7cb"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/7aCq9PPb_9U-VoHqYlFqhcNYJvU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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 Mar 2018 05:15:58 -0000

On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com> wrote:

> Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * Section 4.25
>
> I think this might be a simple misunderstanding but I have no idea what
> compliance with this statement implies.
>
> "A YANG module MUST NOT be designed such that the set of modules found on a
> server implementation can be predetermined in advance."
>
> Can you please clarify?
>
>

OK to remove this sentence.
Not sure where it came from



>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Section 3.2:
>   The date looks to be contradictory between the explanatory text
>
> "The following example is for the '2010-01-18' revision of the  'ietf-foo'
> module:"
>
> and the actual code component defined right after
>
>                    <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang"
> ...
>                                  revision 2016-03-20 {
> ...
>


OK will update revision date



>
> * Section 4.8
>
> I went over this text several times to figure out what it means. Can you
> simplify this, or provide examples as to when revision dates are/are not
> to be
> updated.
>
>    It is not required to keep the full revision history of draft
>    versions (e.g., modules contained within Internet-Drafts).  That is,
>    within a sequence of draft versions, only the most recent revision
>    need be recorded in the module.  However, whenever a new (i.e.
>    changed) version is made available (e.g., via a new version of an
>    Internet-Draft), the revision date of that new version MUST be
>    updated to a date later than that of the previous version.
>
>
OK -- will clarify that the same revision-stmt can be reused in an Internet
Draft.
The revision date is updated if the module is changed.



> * Section 4.14.1.  Non-Presence Container
>
> So what is the guideline here? That there is no guideline?
>
>

that is intentional -- usage of NP containers needs to be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis
because like the text says, it is subjective as to what is inappropriate
usage of an NP-container.



> * Section 4.20
>
> What does "cannot" imply here? MUST NOT? SHOULD NOT?
>


MUST NOT -- per RFC 7950, 7.20.3



>
> "The YANG "deviation" statement cannot appear in IETF YANG modules"
>
>
>
Will change "cannot" to is not allowed to"


Andy