Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: (with COMMENT)

Martin Bjorklund <> Thu, 11 October 2018 08:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E35C5127148; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:23:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5yhiEzb85MbZ; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 823C5130E4B; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DA1741AE0310; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:23:36 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:23:36 +0200
Message-Id: <>
From: Martin Bjorklund <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 08:23:43 -0000


Ben Campbell <> wrote:
> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: No Objection
> 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Substantive:
> §3.3, 4th paragraph: The MUST NOT seems like a statement of fact -- if no
> schema is mounted, it doesn't seem possible for it to include anything.

Right, so this MUST NOT is directed to an implementor.  If you think
it is stating the obvious, I'd be happy to modify this to maybe "does

> §5, last paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? Would it ever make
> sense to violate this?

Probably not, but it could depend on how the mount point is supposed
to be used.  Maybe it is used in such a way that mounted rpcs are not

> §9: The model includes RFC 2119 boilerplate, but the document itself uses the
> newer RFC 8174 boilerplate. Is it normal to include the normative keyword
> boilerplate in the model?

No, but in some cases models use 2119 language w/o the boilerplate and
since models have a life on their own outside the RFC, we thought that
it would be a good idea to clarify the intention by including the

> If so, it should probably match that of the
> containing document.

Yes, fixed.

> Editorial:
> §1, list item 2: "... and is stable as YANG library information of the server."
> Assuming you mean specific YANG library information rather than the general
> concept, there is a missing article before "YANG". (This pattern repeats a few
> time throughout the document.)

Yes, fixed.