Re: [netmod] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-20: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

On 2021-10-06, 10:53, "Balázs Lengyel" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Hello Zaheduzzaman,
    Thank you for the review. 
    See detailed replies as "BALAZS:" below.
    Regards Balazs

    -----Original Message-----
    From: netmod <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Zaheduzzaman Sarker via
    Datatracker
    Sent: 2021. október 6., szerda 8:02
    To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
    Cc: [e-mail];
    [e-mail]; [e-mail]
    Subject: [netmod] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on
    draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-20: (with COMMENT)

    Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-20: 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 https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
    for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format
    /



    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thanks for the efforts on this document.

    I have following comments, by addressing them I believe will improve the
    document quality

    - Section 2.1 : Should it not say if the "content-schema" node exists then
    one of the methods MUST be used? as I see the specification of content
    schema is a SHOULD, hence may not be included for whatever reason.
    BALAZS: In accordance with your comment the SHOULD will be changed to MUST.
    However, that still allows " External Method: Do not include the
    "content-schema" node;"
    People stated that when instance files are used repeatedly (a new file
    generated every few seconds) in a closed, well defined environment,  the
    content-schema may already be known. In this case it is not necessary to
    include it in the file.

I don't think we are on the same page here. I am basically saying in the context of this specification's section 2, the addition of content-schema is a SHOULD, hence one implementation can actually skip it. But then in 2.1, as the text describes the assumption seems to be the content-schema is always present (like a MUST). I am not asking to change the SHOULD to MUST in section 2, but to acknowledge the fact that section 2.1 is only applicable when there is "content-schema".

    - Section 4 : it says

        Instance data files may contain sensitive data.

      OK, but what should be taken into consideration when putting the sensitive
      data in the data file. It feels like there should be more information
      provided to the user of the specification for actually materialize the
      statement made here.
    BALAZS: Instance data files may be used in many different use-cases. 
    Whether the data within is sensitive is completely dependent on the content
    schema applicable to the use-case.
    The draft contains:
    " The security sensitivity of the instance data in the content part is
       completely dependent on the content schema."
    Any suggestions about what else we could say?

In that case, if you think there is enough explanations, I will suggest to simply drop then one line (--Instance data files may contain sensitive data.) or make the one line part of the text you are referring to.

BR

Zahed