[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 []) 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-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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (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 []) (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-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) ([]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2017 11:11:00 +0000
Received: from [] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com []) 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


      1.2. Tree Diagrams

    Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in

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 

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:

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.


     SYNTAX      UUIDorZero
     MAX-ACCESS  read-only
     STATUS      current
             "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;
              "A Universally Unique Identifier of the component.";
            reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>: entPhysicalUUID";


  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}';
      "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:
      "RFC 4122: A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN

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

Regards, Benoit (as OPS AD)