Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

Clyde

Sorry for being unclear

OLD
   This module imports typedefs from [RFC6021], [RFC7223], groupings
   from [RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx], and it references [RFC5424],
   [RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848].

NEW
   This module imports typedefs from [RFC6021], [RFC7223], groupings
   from [RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx], and it references [RFC5424],
   [RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], [RFC5848], and
   [Std-1003.1-2008].

would satisfy me.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 5:05 PM


> Tom,
>
> This does not satisfy the reference requirement?
>
>     leaf pattern-match {
>       if-feature select-match;
>       type string;
>       description
>         "This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression
>          string that can be used to select a syslog message for
>          logging. The match is performed on the SYSLOG-MSG field.";
>       reference
>         "RFC 5424: The Syslog Protocol
>          Std-1003.1-2008 Regular Expressions";
>     }
>
> Please help me understand what more you want.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
> On 12/14/17, 3:55 AM, "t.petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Clyde
>
>     A quick glance at -18 shows that there is now a Normative
Reference for
>     Posix - good- but I do not see it referenced - not so good:-(
>
>     I think that there needs to be a reference in 4.1
>
>     Tom Petch
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>
>     To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[e-mail]>; "Kent Watsen"
>     <[e-mail]>; "t.petch" <[e-mail]>;
>     <[e-mail]>
>     Cc: <[e-mail]>
>     Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:26 PM
>     Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup
>     issues -references
>
>
>     > Benoit,
>     >
>     > There were approximately 24 changes requested from you, Kent,
Robert
>     Wilton, and Tom Petch. I have made approximately half of them and
will
>     try to finish another revision of the draft by Friday.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     >
>     > Clyde
>     >
>     > On 9/27/17, 3:24 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)"
<[e-mail]>
>     wrote:
>     >
>     >     Clyde,
>     >
>     >     Do you know your next step to progress this document?
>     >
>     >     Regards, Benoit
>     >     > I meant to say something about the .1 vs .2 difference.
My
>     comment
>     >     > assumes that it's supposed to be .1, but we of course
should use
>     >     > whatever is correct.
>     >     >
>     >     > I also don't know much about that standards body.
>     >     >
>     >     > K.
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > ----- Original Message -----
>     >     > From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
>     >     > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:08 PM
>     >     >
>     >     >> Hi Tom,
>     >     >>
>     >     >> Thanks.  The fix I'm looking for is for the
'pattern-match'
>     leaf
>     >     >> to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and
for
>     S4.1
>     >     >> to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a draft-level reference.
>     >     > and I am unfamiliar with that standards body so am looking
for a
>     little
>     >     > more.
>     >     >
>     >     > Is STD-nnnn always Posix or do we need to say Posix 1003
or
>     Posix
>     >     > Std-1003 or is Std-1003 completely unrelated to Posix
1003?
>     >     >
>     >     > Is there a difference between Std-1003.1-2008 and Posix
1003.2
>     ie is the
>     >     > .1 or .2 significant?  You want Std-1003.1; the
description
>     contains
>     >     > Posix 1003.2; the normative Reference is to
Std-1003.1-2008.
>     >     >
>     >     > You pointed out that the Normative Reference is not used;
well
>     if we can
>     >     > sort out what the standard is and get the right label in
>     Normative
>     >     > References then we can - must - include this in Section
4.1
>     which will
>     >     > resolve that comment of yours.
>     >     >
>     >     > The discussions last July had Clyde saying he wants Posix
1003.2
>     so if
>     >     > Std-1003 and Posix 1003 are the same but .1 and.2 are
different,
>     then
>     >     > you are asking for a semantic change against Clyde's
wishes.
>     >     >
>     >     > I hope my confusion is sufficiently clear, at least to
Clyde!
>     >     >
>     >     > Tom Petch
>     >     >
>     >     >> I was going to point out the typo "the the" as well, but
>     figured
>     >     >> that the RFC Editor would get it.
>     >     >>
>     >     >> K. // shepherd
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >> --
>     >     >>
>     >     >> Kent
>     >     >>
>     >     >> You flag Std-1003.1-2008 as listed as a normative
reference but
>     not
>     >     > used
>     >     >> anywhere in the document.  In the Descriptions, but not
in the
>     s.4.1
>     >     >> references, I see
>     >     >>
>     >     >> This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression ...
>     >     >>
>     >     >> twice, which may, or may not, relate to this issue.
>     >     >>
>     >     >> Back in July, clyde said
>     >     >> "I will insert a normative reference to POSIX 1003.2 in
the
>     next
>     >     >> revision of the draft."
>     >     >>
>     >     >> In a similar vein, RFC6991 appears in a reference
statement but
>     >     > nowhere
>     >     >> else.
>     >     >>
>     >     >> As you point out, RFC6021 is referenced but is obsoleted
by
>     RFC6991 so
>     >     >> should not be.
>     >     >>
>     >     >> And in a slightly different vein,
>     >     >>
>     >     >>     registry [RFC7895]/>.  Following the format in
[RFC7950]/>,
>     the the
>     >     >>
>     >     >> looks odd for plain text and for the repetition of
'the'..
>     >     >>
>     >     >> Tom Petch
>     >     >>
>     >     >> ----- Original Message -----
>     >     >> From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
>     >     >> To: <[e-mail]>
>     >     >> Cc: <[e-mail]>
>     >     >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM
>     >     >> Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>> Clyde, all,
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the
>     following
>     >     >> issues that I think need to be addressed before the
document
>     can be
>     >     > sent
>     >     >> to Benoit for AD review:
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> 1. Idnits found the following:
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings
(==), 1
>     comment
>     >     >> (--).
>     >     >>>      ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the
>     document, the
>     >     >> longest one
>     >     >>>           being 3 characters in excess of 72.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>      ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021
(Obsoleted by
>     RFC
>     >     > 6991)
>     >     >>>      ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC:
RFC
>     6587
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>      == Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on
line 359,
>     but
>     >     > not
>     >     >> defined
>     >     >>>           '[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and
[RFC5848]....'
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line
1406,
>     but no
>     >     >> explicit
>     >     >>>            reference was found in the text
>     >     >>>            '[RFC7895]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and
K.
>     Watsen,
>     >     > "YANG
>     >     >> Module L...'
>     >     >>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line
1435,
>     but no
>     >     >> explicit
>     >     >>>            reference was found in the text
>     >     >>>            '[RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF
>     Protocol
>     >     > over
>     >     >> Secure Sh...'
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> 2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang",  which is
missing
>     >     >> "@yyyy-mm-dd" in its name
>     >     >>> 3.  neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with
>     >     >> ietf-syslog.yang.    pyang says
>     >     >>>        for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement
"identity"
>     must
>     >     > have
>     >     >> a "description"
>     >     >>>        substatement.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> 4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint:
>     >     >>>        - for both examples: Missing element's
"namespace".
>     (/config)
>     >     >>>        - just removing the "<config>" element envelop
resolves
>     this
>     >     >> error.
>     >     >>> 5. the 2nd example uses IP address
"2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but
>     this
>     >     >> SHOULD be a
>     >     >>>       domain name (e.g., foo.example.com)
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> 6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed
in a
>     >     >> 'description' statement,
>     >     >>>       there should be a 'reference' statement for that
RFC.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> 7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate
what
>     they
>     >     >> point at, they now all
>     >     >>>       just say "leafref".  Did you do this on purpose,
or are
>     you
>     >     > using
>     >     >> a different tree
>     >     >>>       output generator from -15?
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> 8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it
probably
>     >     > should
>     >     >> be informative.
>     >     >>> 9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference,
but it
>     is not
>     >     >> used anywhere in the document.
>     >     >>> 10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but
it is
>     not
>     >     > used
>     >     >> anywhere in the document.
>     >     >>> 11. the document fails to declare its normative
references to
>     >     >> ietf-keystore and ietf-tls-client-server.
>     >     >>>          Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and
[RFC
>     xxxx]"
>     >     >> references…
>     >     >>> 12.  The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric.
Either
>     put
>     >     >> both registry insertions into
>     >     >>>          subsections, or keep them both at the
top-level…
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> 13. reviewing the final document against my original YD
>     review, I
>     >     > have
>     >     >> the following responses.  Let's be sure to close out
these
>     items as
>     >     >> well.  Ref:
>     >     >
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11
>     >     >> s-0gOfCe8NSE
>     >     >>> 1. ok
>     >     >>> 2. better
>     >     >>> 3. should be: s/the message/these messages/  [RFC Editor
>     might've
>     >     >> caught this]
>     >     >>> 4. better
>     >     >>> 5. still feel the same way, but no biggee
>     >     >>> 6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when,
and
>     only
>     >     >> when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here."
>     >     >>> 7. fixed
>     >     >>> 8. fixed
>     >     >>> 9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't
>     satisfying...
>     >     >>> 10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask
wasn't
>     among
>     >     > them
>     >     >>> 11. better
>     >     >>> 12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented
too,
>     right?
>     >     >>> 13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram
Notation"
>     >     >>> 14. fixed
>     >     >>> 15. fixed
>     >     >>> 16. fixed
>     >     >>> 17. fine
>     >     >>> 18. still a weird line brake here.  try putting the
quoted
>     string on
>     >     >> the next line.
>     >     >>> 19. fixed
>     >     >>> 20. fixed
>     >     >>> 21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines)
>     >     >>> 22. fine
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his
AD
>     review.
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> Thanks,
>     >     >>> Kent  // shepherd & yang doctor
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>> _______________________________________________
>     >     >>> netmod mailing list
>     >     >>> [e-mail]
>     >     >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>     >     >>>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >>
>     >     >
>     >     >
>     >     > _______________________________________________
>     >     > netmod mailing list
>     >     > [e-mail]
>     >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>