IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 08 March 2018 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 74E50126D85; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 06:24:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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
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 I4NY4-IYySkL; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 06:24:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 098B6120713; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 06:24:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3713; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520519096; x=1521728696; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=TawKP9YYZwKRuh2MOQ1s77RG8LETFE+rPx5+X861I3c=; b=B7o8jhe5LM6EMMceXYx1hZxjg08EuWP32ulkbY0dRddmRRVB/YJXWHN1 03fe/d78yInv4JFAXvPM2jFapvZ4os9d3IIXTiQ5xK/sEyVzfL/cZrjfx V9NqDtPtWboffT6xmpz85H5MGQYru/cboXJyWDM2ezVu8++4I9pMOHXKY s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B4AQAcR6Fa/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJagkuDeIsRjl4ngRaPCIUhghUKhSUCgys2FgECAQEBAQEBAmsnhSQBBSNmCwQUKgICVwYBDAgBAReEfqsLgiYmhEuDeIIdhTWEBIFmKQyCeIgqgmIEmk8JkGEHiQqFV4tFhgKBLCUCL4FSMxoIGxWCfoJigWY/jB0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,441,1515456000"; d="scan'208,217";a="2505036"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2018 14:24:52 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w28EOqMj018481; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 14:24:52 GMT
To: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, Sandy Ginoza <sginoza@amsl.com>, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org, Michelle Cotton <michelle.cotton@iana.org>
References: <152050158005.21412.3389388204390015375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6ac9d4d5-d725-ad5a-d275-888afbc827cc@cisco.com> <20180308141508.mgah4poryqqs5weu@elstar.local>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <c6f95654-9665-0b1d-eac8-7a0e05201aef@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:24:52 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180308141508.mgah4poryqqs5weu@elstar.local>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------FDE524F9A12D7FF5F404798A"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/BCrrjhqqVRXID9lrXvO3RxlmvBk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with 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: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 14:24:58 -0000

On 3/8/2018 3:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:21:01PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>> I see two solutions from here.
>> 1. we mention "pyang -f yang --yang-canonical --keep-comments FILE" in
>> RFC6087bis, with a warning such as: "As the tool matures, a human might need
>> to polish the results"
>> 2. we don't mention "pyang -f yang --yang-canonical --keep-comments FILE" in
>> RFC6087bis, but we ask the YANG doctors to run the tests.
> I am not sure it is a good idea to hard code command line options of
> specific tools in a BCP document. We should require that things are
> consistently indented and stay away from the advice of the day how
> to achieve that.
RFC 6087 mentions "pyang --ietf"  and 
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams mentions "pyang -f tree 
--tree-line-length 50"

If not in RFC6087bis, where would we document this?
As a rhetorical question: How many of the YANG doctors were aware of and 
are enforcing this command?

Background Info.
Typical question I've been receiving lately (in this case from IANA):
When requesting the final files from the RFC-Editor, the file they 
extracted using their tool and the yang modules appear to have a lot of 
blank space in them. Is this OK?

Regards, Benoit
>
> /js
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email