[netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 20 December 2017 11:11 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 24DC512421A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 03:11:05 -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 LGtZuiChoNa2 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 03:11:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43FE1200F3 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 03:11:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7958; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513768263; x=1514977863; h=subject:references:from:to:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=JTGxfyr2013rln9OzXqJucOmguIzipFmchmncCPav9w=; b=eAMQywV26ovcd/u1F948au4iTx0Tkp7F+hqhtuD/a7hZhaIjEAotvrPF EGZ1c/gQZMZS1qF7Jdbofy2G5GPDeNgT+JRLjxV10xoAIlHnD1buPnukS 3JAqNfBgk64kUexEugmZeEBroh8Q4TWBHDFqY9r0/FNi5ODC96g2cBiOf U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B6AgCcQzpa/xbLJq1bGgEBAQEBAgEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEIAQEBAYQkdCeEBosVoXKFZIIBCiWFFgKFVBUBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIUkBiNmTQI?= =?us-ascii?q?CVwYNCAEBFooREKRngicmikYBAQEBAQEBAwEBAQEBAQEcBYN/g2iBaSmGMgGBN?= =?us-ascii?q?oNOgmMFo0SIAI0ugheKASSHO40dgVmIBYE7NSOBTzIaCBsVgmaCUxyBaEA3AYp?= =?us-ascii?q?lAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,431,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="992307"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2017 11:11:00 +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 vBKBB0H4013838 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:11:00 GMT
References: <ad97d611-b647-e72e-3a20-65dd0b9cb06e@cisco.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <ad97d611-b647-e72e-3a20-65dd0b9cb06e@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <9e66674b-4c6b-94f4-5fb6-4013c390c5db@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 12:11:00 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ad97d611-b647-e72e-3a20-65dd0b9cb06e@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------9C44FAAECD77F072EF713322"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/F0GJH135RwUHeWBEQzOcFNV2Cdk>
Subject: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
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, 20 Dec 2017 11:11:05 -0000

Dear all,

Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.
Note that if you post the new version soon (before the end of this 
week), I could start the IETF last call, and the draft could be on Jan 
11th IESG telechat.

- I don't believe that the RFC 2119 keywords are right on the following 
sentences (SHOULD => should):

    o  The hardware data model SHOULD be suitable for new implementations
       to use as is.

    o  The hardware data model defined in this document can be
       implemented on a system that also implements ENTITY-MIB, thus the
       mapping between the hardware data model and ENTITY-MIB SHOULD be
       clear.

-


      1.2. Tree Diagrams


    Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
    [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>].

You could remove the above and add the reference to section 3.

    This document defines the YANG module "ietf-hardware", which has the
    following structure [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>]:

Martin, be consistent with all your YANG modules. So keep your temp 
versions of RFC7223bis and RFC7277bis consistent as well.

- Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
       entPhysicalSerialNum
       entPhysicalAlias
       entPhysicalAssetID
       entPhysicalUris

For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me.
serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in RFC6933, while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
You should mention these ro/rw differences with RFC6933.
There might be other differences.

-
UUIDorZero

entPhysicalUUID OBJECT-TYPE
     SYNTAX      UUIDorZero
     MAX-ACCESS  read-only
     STATUS      current
     DESCRIPTION
             "This object contains identification information
             about the physical entity.  The object contains a
             Universally Unique Identifier, the syntax of this object
             must conform toRFC 4122, Section 4.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122#section-4.1>;.

             A zero-length octet string is returned if no UUID
             information is known."


The YANG module is:

          leaf uuid {
            type yang:uuid;
            config false;
            description
              "A Universally Unique Identifier of the component.";
            reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>;: entPhysicalUUID";
          }


Where:

  typedef uuid {
     type string {
       pattern '[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-'
             + '[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}';
     }
     description
      "A Universally Unique IDentifier in the string representation
       defined in RFC 4122.  The canonical representation uses
       lowercase characters.

       The following is an example of a UUID in string representation:
       f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6
       ";
     reference
      "RFC 4122: A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN
                 Namespace";
   }

Again a difference between the MIB and YANG module to mention in the document?


Regards, Benoit (as OPS AD)