Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Tue, 15 September 2020 23:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 A8D0C3A0EEF; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.619
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.619 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=TWd9qA8U; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=bZmVxuhy
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 jPI9aAyrC9nl; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:04:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9D233A0EEE; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 16:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5830; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1600211046; x=1601420646; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=sIkh/i1VRjGst4kdbTTO5Mq28Tt/EqwrsxWHhvvYF9Q=; b=TWd9qA8UzQNV9vj0Q/BUPHnbg56oLL80bQuLPcjxqC6ATX1IWZfhe+Sr 8I+DetItNrr9YS95oSLKLWrmo6gGxjO0lyTmXlu4tYuZgI6TRMyPb3LY1 WUSBQCtEt6gpS7zXZp3Nd29xz/zAuRLxIO35qGwPCae6ST43ke+Yx0bZW s=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A2e3ZUBx/IVRUXVrXCy+N+z0EezQntrPoPwUc9p?= =?us-ascii?q?sgjfdUf7+++4j5ZRWDt/5pgVrMG4LB5KEMh+nXtvXmXmoNqdaEvWsZeZNBHx?= =?us-ascii?q?kClY0NngMmDcLEbC+zLPPjYyEgWsgXUlhj8iKwNUVQHYD5fVKB6nG35CQZTx?= =?us-ascii?q?P4Mwc9L+/pG4nU2sKw0e36+5DabwhSwjSnZrYnJxStpgKXvc4T0oY=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DzAACRR2Ff/4ENJK1fHQEBAQEJARI?= =?us-ascii?q?BBQUBQIE9BgELAYFRKSgHcFkvLIQ5g0YDjXGYcoEuFIERA1ULAQEBDQEBIwo?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAEBhEsCF4IJAiQ2Bw4CAwEBCwEBBQEBAQIBBgRthS8IJQyFcgEBAQECARI?= =?us-ascii?q?REQwBATcBDwIBCBgCAiYCAgIwFRACBAENBSKDBAGCSwMOIAEOqjsCgTmIYXa?= =?us-ascii?q?BMoMBAQEFgTcCg3cYghADBoEOKgGCcIJcS0KGUhuBQT+BOByCTT6CXAEBAgG?= =?us-ascii?q?BMwEOIRAjgl0zggsikAaDIaJsgQAKgmWIcpFQAx6DCYl1ji2FQ5JpiluQZYQ?= =?us-ascii?q?qAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFbByyBV3AVZQGCPlAXAg2DNYpqN24BCYJChRSFQnQ3AgY?= =?us-ascii?q?BCQEBAwl8jFsBJ4IeAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,430,1592870400"; d="scan'208";a="827839710"
Received: from alln-core-9.cisco.com ([173.36.13.129]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 Sep 2020 23:04:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (xch-aln-001.cisco.com [173.36.7.11]) by alln-core-9.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 08FN45d0011937 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 15 Sep 2020 23:04:05 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-ALN-001.cisco.com (173.36.7.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:04:05 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 18:04:04 -0500
Received: from NAM12-DM6-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 19:04:04 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=Uj5iXD6y4++E2yNzCTFHrX55JGyC4uLfpldaPI40Q3ZU26CjUgqHFZQNOaXMPV85R2UuBmLrCpAhsF2nb6IxEzyg0Vwo7H0Ra8NVUy8XDtUG6vyrX3m6ajfhFzyLkig+Wwv+JuIiODTxnKh9Xe+34BM/SioNnGT9UKrG1dPk8/JNAvldAuw1CjyjAO+UAJxb8aMsb8AFv6L2UAr/UDFugDRffZmaqByl5MzaHGWW+zTGwqgbKT8pON+SvmTldIxubtAwUNjzYZwPbTPFKXIi0HtzUmfPyI+KmSqI3nndANWc3obiS13cD963fsONJ7Vyb5HQ5QEnaWf5xx/+0CYcMw==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=sIkh/i1VRjGst4kdbTTO5Mq28Tt/EqwrsxWHhvvYF9Q=; b=X4T4iNJ/tn/YvlqcB0BOl6lH0X6MSASXqrn80jJBaQbMu79AO0puW9T4MuG0FjV0zKcy9/46umiVjrNbn98+/RdAMH60KpKLR+R53QpMf31tHLhEvU4M2CRtVLlhiybhdYpw0mnRXU8KaIXDRNqOd42kGBIeBPPbNpbrYuCKPtMTAwxGcyVI+3tVJ3niR6ZOde5hpGLuZNkeRNDz0aen6hIvQaSAaQno63LksqK+sD/Ig216eUVtn/5r+ig2XkbB13pAJdI5CBUzJNeTNr/IBTDEnERemcNmnJOVFaJ0I67BPg9IkKSmSVLu4/yIQ6oNuBNE7BWw4a0yi/Gf/0xmQw==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=sIkh/i1VRjGst4kdbTTO5Mq28Tt/EqwrsxWHhvvYF9Q=; b=bZmVxuhylOvOqtcrzc/9lFR77izG7CJOZK9IFBZvon86lQOWrgStkS0+XIEgfeWpDZO4dH+M+sbc1ZUBIAoQXE+t0C/CG8pO6KoDcBWjDWGn1/EYKWkUCqbrUGIeAqRnfl7s6wfspy5PF3caXtns0YdHjkdzXeqL4N8984WGKCg=
Received: from BN6PR11MB3875.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:80::37) by BN6PR11MB4162.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:405:84::12) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3370.18; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 23:04:01 +0000
Received: from BN6PR11MB3875.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6db4:f6de:cc07:487]) by BN6PR11MB3875.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6db4:f6de:cc07:487%6]) with mapi id 15.20.3348.019; Tue, 15 Sep 2020 23:04:01 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Alexander L Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
CC: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04
Thread-Index: AQHWi6XXGy8knHCfYEaSiW7jf0az2KlqDqQA
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2020 23:04:01 +0000
Message-ID: <8759A9BF-300C-46F7-B39F-9EF4CFA2D726@cisco.com>
References: <159942490640.25028.10946254095755778899@ietfa.amsl.com> <EF21460A-8689-491C-AE19-942C6FA84FFC@cisco.com> <e801c95e-078e-8438-b1a0-18aaf4be3a82@clemm.org>
In-Reply-To: <e801c95e-078e-8438-b1a0-18aaf4be3a82@clemm.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/16.37.20051002
authentication-results: clemm.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;clemm.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [2607:fea8:bee0:52e:990f:6f81:8d67:393e]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 9e983043-cd1e-4b4a-c833-08d859cba296
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BN6PR11MB4162:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BN6PR11MB416278FD7CBD4164A2739799AB200@BN6PR11MB4162.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:9508;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: OqYsxgqBxGUkMuL+uidX3uqgVAbpe/LPTlpmPUm2rd1EiQVNLSwgzb4JQyKCPzdd0TStFWI+u5/FEsqBrgUnssUp8wRuZU1Ex5GZxtAIhTfbhT9bK1XQnYuSA5tZi/Fl+E8qFhrJrjDq5vPFtp+ULyi4N6Z8EOpPMOqG0lwzAgL/uVeAG4e4UcVBaHkHDk0PkK8SIwm3opIY4q4bfUEwIuWa0neGjlJJOadup7eo+N4o88g0HJdyHxbvE8Z4ERJTkD3sjvp0JSBJhrtVpYm2MOtIbsQt8IYbzkk+PJcZcaagBal5ToJdKRCqcI2B15f+Lx523Ji93by1tINMygeNOSUy04lm4ylVmHPDJHhV0UipieByQe1HSEc+C/95HJt2H/WKJYqh2InVxN+6VAanaQ==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:BN6PR11MB3875.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(396003)(366004)(346002)(376002)(39860400002)(136003)(316002)(6486002)(2616005)(83380400001)(5660300002)(478600001)(54906003)(6506007)(53546011)(36756003)(6512007)(86362001)(186003)(71200400001)(33656002)(110136005)(8936002)(66946007)(8676002)(4326008)(66446008)(66476007)(66556008)(76116006)(91956017)(64756008)(2906002)(966005); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <CDBBB938B45F324297636FD5D7224BBD@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: BN6PR11MB3875.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 9e983043-cd1e-4b4a-c833-08d859cba296
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 15 Sep 2020 23:04:01.2329 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: KsNs26DkkHv+S0oXwmCISe2WPRbSnr+5I4bJBORY31AlquFc652wRjLi0jV2C6aEsRRwawuyIw/jr+Nu3DU7Gg==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BN6PR11MB4162
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.36.7.11, xch-aln-001.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-9.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/9IA21ZBo9WKnEvRt_9iQmJHictI>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-nmda-diff-04
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 15 Sep 2020 23:04:09 -0000

Hi Alex,

I will review the latest version.

See below for questions/responses.

On 2020-09-15, 5:19 PM, "yang-doctors on behalf of Alexander L Clemm" <yang-doctors-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of ludwig@clemm.org> wrote:

    Hello Reshad, hello YANG Doctors,

    thank you for your review!  Please find my replies inline, <ALEX>.  We
    have also just posted -05 (thanks, Yingzhen, for doublechecking my
    updates).   

    --- Alex on behalf of coauthors

    On 9/7/2020 7:06 AM, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    > <Here's the same message with hopefully more readable formatting>
    >
    > Review of rev -04 by Reshad Rahman
    >
    > The document is clear and well-written. While some issues have been identified, they can be resolved quickly.
    >
<snip>

    > Questions
    > 	1.	YANG model: does the operation “delete” make sense for a diff operation? If it is kept, it’d be good to have some text explaining that for a diff operation, “delete” and “replace” are the same? If they’re not the same, please also add some text….
<RR> I actually meant "delete" and "remove".
    <ALEX> Here we are simply referring to the basic YANG-patch edit
    operations per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8072#page-11.  Those are
    in turn derived from <edit-config> operations per
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#page-37.  I am not sure we need add
    to explain those, as we are directly referring to YANG-patch. 

    </ALEX>
<RR> The operations are indeed well defined in RFC8072 (copied below), but they are defined from the perspective of YANG-Patch. So for YANG-Patch "delete" and "remove" are different operations, but from a diff comparison I believe they are the same (the resource must exist since it's being returned in a diff)

   +-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
   | delete    | delete a data resource if it already exists; if it    |
   |                | does not exist, return an error                               |
   |                |                                                                                      |
   | remove | remove a data resource if it already exists           |
   +-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+

    > 	3.	YANG model P9, for the “uses path:yang-patch”, why not have a  reference to RFC8072 (is it because the description above mentions RFC8072)?
    <ALEX> We are clearly referencing RFC 8072; are you suggesting to put a
    reference substatement below the uses statement?   It looks a little
    strange to me but sure, we will add it.   
<RR> Not needed. 

    > 	4.	Section 7 mentions rate limiting requests per client. Should there be a “global” rate-limiting too, i.e not client-specific?

    <ALEX> I am not sure this is really needed as I think the number of
    management clients will in general be fairly limited to begin with, but
    we can certainly add it.  How about the following text:

    OLD:

    One possibility for an implementation to mitigate against such a
    possibility is to limit the number of requests that is served to a
    client in any one time interval, rejecting requests made at a higher
    frequency than the implementation can reasonably sustain.

    NEW:

    One possibility for an implementation to mitigate against such a
    possibility is to limit the number of requests that is served to a
    client, or to any number of clients, in any one time interval, rejecting
    requests made at a higher frequency than the implementation can
    reasonably sustain.
<RR> Good with me.

    </ALEX>

    > 	5.	Wondering if section 8 should be in an Appendix (or even removed)? Also, the method suggested doesn’t seem to guarantee that the difference persisted for the “dampening” time.

    <ALEX> Personally, I do think it makes sense to include a brief
    discussion of possible further extensions.  I suggest to keep the
    section if it's okay with you, or perhaps leave it to the chair whether
    they have a preference to remove it.  

    </ALEX>
<RR>Whatever the WG/chairs decide is fine with me.

Regards,
Reshad.