Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 07 March 2019 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 2D4131279A8 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:44:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 MvX5CSHbdUAs for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x130.google.com (mail-lf1-x130.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::130]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E6F212795E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:44:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x130.google.com with SMTP id d26so12460676lfa.1 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 10:44:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tjeO3jAD85NokzAEl7st3AVA2KdpBMgw1uVJe75BKtc=; b=lxC559AvsM4J5WozC2Rn4mSZGGWrOSMjNkggHlyk/Dyk9C5GksnK8SSSa8sLuvkfmZ LpbDJP9tzrLn31jqLA6SEtzOSODNEQWBsYXzf4fJlIWeznvg+uqK87d669t8MpPWyRGE RKhyH+5kcGgmIDizVhOOHDSQ8VepD9C9F4bfi039gymh3tFol4JIJEFoQC55qrLPILq7 Y2L8+xXLQU6BQE3dlbfEu1WVjszmm3U9da2Bx2QF8G2qWkS1Vk2peZo4K/movXkpqXYU lRezy+5gXCy92c8ggbLEUfjOiMG5woxXpqOejcwWLqT6obLxxzPZtk0P39bgklDkc4XI kbxg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tjeO3jAD85NokzAEl7st3AVA2KdpBMgw1uVJe75BKtc=; b=Hh2lu8wtKid7M8Pu5EMOU+1O/nWHZjWgHIowxLkcNufmQjUMYcssmwMjd+R3gGg8zM fxPYNyQkq2jPyoA1BOXuVrP+OYT3EspLegp0NgjNqPw9eJItC1IGeyVXfzL9dWswthvw LM7DJTYzhK2f6c2vtaIBPBi9tl+JlIVjmnz9pu95F1t2M/VynEKpX30EEGMRUPf+qS8A kLs1Mf8Q88/AHsXko88v6kRKzfJk1ZT7XzFKaw4sR5JuzXKpdPfi8JeBvcWiuFw6mN1S W5wWg9op9oix7qk8fYq6Y3HQf+HDkMc5+mcMCo6qn/CbVOCpsgPva+rNe+onfYAGRcaH AaMg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWtbqSw2ba19dP8jGSLvaH5fuunyyRkW6W405cmv0zoDDuMqEf1 Jc3X+hwZBtJEB14mYBGU3R1qsn1O4wRXlLF5GuUcgg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw56BB4R2ugy2PrTIHQpxpyeu0VIGbqlxAvizPt4cCJzNUX99scstwb3cLSte7L7R/EFzxHRNCPuCec1fkdZd8=
X-Received: by 2002:ac2:53ab:: with SMTP id j11mr7826612lfh.49.1551984268140; Thu, 07 Mar 2019 10:44:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <155183201188.27630.13798246400958114485@ietfa.amsl.com> <0BE3CBAC-40EF-4162-82D0-04C638A3B429@chopps.org> <CABCOCHR-AROb3D1tyEgkNiP0keab_Q-K4T+iSPNwD8eg3ASG4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEe_xxiZS8cTVN=FuULJ_2ppdYrjoiHTJPYu0an4Z-oJY7hQsQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAEe_xxiZS8cTVN=FuULJ_2ppdYrjoiHTJPYu0an4Z-oJY7hQsQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:44:16 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHRxebOhNOEXe5nAmLdEAK-e3xeeqM1T9C1sDfkXABmugA@mail.gmail.com>
To: William Lupton <wlupton@broadband-forum.org>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fff3730583857e1c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/F90P9zqWMEa9at-SwiE4UqpHgt4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 18:44:33 -0000

On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:37 AM William Lupton <wlupton@broadband-forum.org>;
wrote:

> This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details)
> but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that
> registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes.
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
>


looks like a great solution and would be less duplication of registries

Andy




>
> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 18:28, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>; wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
>>>
>>> > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <
>>> ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>; wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>>> > Review result: Almost Ready
>>> >
>>> ....
>>> > If I read correctly, the YANG definition in s4.2 REQUIRES that all
>>> tags have a
>>> > prefix.  For clarity, it would better if this read:
>>> >    All tags MUST begin with a prefix; it is intended that this prefix
>>> SHOULD
>>> >   [or maybe 'should'] indicate
>>> >  the ownership or origination of the definition.
>>>
>>> The intent was to not put the MUST on users. As the final arbiters of
>>> tags, users should be free to do whatever they want and not have
>>> implementations or standards superfluously block them from doing so. How
>>> about we carry the SHOULD into the typedef in the YANG model as well? That
>>> seems reasonable to me, i.e.,
>>>
>>>   typedef tag {
>>>     type string {
>>>       length "1..max";
>>>       pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\-_]*:[\S ]+';
>>>     }
>>>     description
>>>       "A tag is a type 'string' value that does not include carriage
>>>        return, newline or tab characters. It SHOULD begin with a
>>>        standard prefix.";
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.
>> I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.
>> (Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the prefix
>> "vendor:"
>> seems a bit short-sighted)
>>
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> > S2, para 1: s/yang type/YANG type/ (I think)
>>> >
>>> > S2.2: s/follwing/following/
>>> >
>>> > S3.1, para 2:
>>> > OLD:
>>> > If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also
>>> be Section
>>> > 2.1. Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new standard tags to
>>> the IANA
>>> > registry, and the IANA registry can serve as a check against
>>> duplication.
>>> >
>>> > NEW:
>>> > If the module is defined in an IETF standards track document, the tags
>>> MUST use
>>> > the prefix defined in Section 2.1. Thus, definitions of new modules
>>> can drive
>>> > the addition of new standard tags to the IANA registry defined in
>>> Section 7.2,
>>> > and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.
>>> >
>>> > ENDS
>>> >
>>> > S3.2: s/standard/IETF Standard/
>>> >
>>> > S3.3: It would be useful to introduce the term 'masking' used later in
>>> the YANG
>>> > module definition.
>>>
>>> How about:
>>>
>>> "Tags of any kind can be assigned and removed by the user using normal
>>> configuration mechanisms. In order to remove a tag from the
>>> operational datastore the user adds a matching =masked-tag= entry for
>>> a given module."
>>>
>>> > S4.1: I think this usage of RFC 8340 makes it normative.
>>>
>>> Covered earlier (BCP).
>>>
>>> > S4.2, extension module-tag definition: This should contain a pointer
>>> to RFC
>>> > 8342 which discusses the system origin concept.
>>>
>>> Added.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Chris.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Major issues:
>>> >
>>> > Minor issues:
>>> >
>>> > Nits/editorial comments:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > netmod mailing list
>>> > netmod@ietf.org
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>