Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Tue, 05 December 2017 15:15 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 C3FC0127369 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 K7n6RrMsFABh for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74E17127333 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 07:15:56 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6948; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1512486956; x=1513696556; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=VcdSUazjPJNuyWj486PSdLnM9oPubP8tc37PwsnNRlA=; b=PM/BL3qyRe2/fgYsdKbIWdHEIW2zu0QfUI4x44k/by6eN63pJm/u0mTY 9VXi4mrZLFzv5HyEpbBg6BNIRv7eg6MBurxsOH4QWye8u50MLN3AkmQai ldAXMT7NWsGQEfkamoSN6AMkIlR0lu9uw+XIrBwNlSgWyFHcdN7vGzDNz g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DPAAC4tyZa/4QNJK1TCRkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDPWZuJweDeYogjnqBfZcCFIIBChgLhElPAhqFLD8YAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFIgEBAQECAQEBIQQNOhsCAQgSBgICJgICAiULFQIOAgQBEoobCBCoeYFtOopcAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEZBYEPgjmCCoM/gyuEdxIYF4J+gmMFonYCi1+JMpNYliQCERkBgTkBHzmBTW8VOoIphFV4iRWBFAEBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,364,1508803200"; d="scan'208";a="326888809"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 05 Dec 2017 15:15:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (xch-rtp-009.cisco.com [64.101.220.149]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vB5FFgSh014286 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:15:43 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (64.101.220.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:15:42 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:15:42 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05
Thread-Index: AQHTbcuMZJuCpmbmyUq+Ic+vgACwAKM03CSA
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:15:41 +0000
Message-ID: <D64C21E5.DF9A4%acee@cisco.com>
References: <4b313b03-73e2-1633-5936-4526ca67f820@transpacket.com> <D6221298.D4E52%acee@cisco.com> <e9cd8aa3-3200-00a9-4f62-967dd8c564a5@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9cd8aa3-3200-00a9-4f62-967dd8c564a5@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <295F791060E48E498B9BE738936DBEEA@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Fu80An-HdJl-VR7gBu0RPUwR9Gk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05
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: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 15:15:59 -0000

Hi Benoit,


On 12/5/17, 8:18 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

>On 11/3/2017 5:49 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> Thanks for comments - see inline.
>>
>> On 10/29/17, 8:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Vladimir Vassilev"
>> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of vladimir@transpacket.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have reviewed draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05. My conclusion is that
>>> the YANG modules part of the draft have been successfully modified in
>>> accordance with sec. '4.23.3 NMDA Transition Guidelines' of
>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14. The modifications are coherent with
>>>the
>>> ietf-interfaces@2017-08-17.yang module in
>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00 and ietf-ip@2017-08-21.yang module in
>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
>>>
>>> Vladimir
>>>
>>>
>>> Review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05.
>>> Vladimir Vassilev
>>> 2017-10-30
>>>
>>> 'Abstract':
>>> 'Introduction 1':
>>>   - Both Abstract and Sec 1. contain duplicated text which can be
>>>removed
>> >from Abstract. The text in Sec 1. can be simplified:
>>> OLD:
>>>     This version of these YANG modules uses new names for these YANG
>>>     models.  The main difference from the first version is that this
>>>     version fully conforms to the Network Management Datastore
>>>     Architecture (NMDA).  Consequently, this document obsoletes RFC
>>>8022.
>>> NEW:
>>>     This version of the Routing Management data model supports the
>>>Network
>>>     Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
>>> [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].
>> The Abstract and Introduction sections are independent and the
>>information
>> is pertinent to both.
>Acee,
>The point (as reported by someone else to me) is that this sentence is
>not correct and should be removed.
>
>    This version of these YANG modules uses new names for these YANG
>    models.

Agreed. Will fix as part of WG last call comments.

Thanks,
Acee

>
>Regards, Benoit
>>
>>>
>>> '7.  Routing Management YANG Module':
>>>
>>>   - Why should address-family identity be different e.g. mandatory
>>> "false"; for system created RIBs? I think this needs some explanation
>>> (Page 21):
>>>             ...
>>>             uses address-family {
>>>               description
>>>                 "Address family of the RIB.
>>>
>>>                  It is mandatory for user-controlled RIBs.  For
>>>                  system-controlled RIBs it can be omitted; otherwise,
>>>it
>>>                  must match the address family of the corresponding
>>>state
>>>                  entry.";
>>>               refine "address-family" {
>>>                 mandatory "false";
>>>               }
>>>             }
>>>             ...
>> I will discuss this with my co-authors.
>>>   - Suggested change of 'base address-family;' -> 'base
>>> rt:address-family;' for identity ipv4 and ipv6 (ref.
>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14#section-4.2):
>>>
>>>      o The local module prefix MUST be used instead of no prefix in
>>>      all "default" statements for an "identityref" or
>>> "instance-identifier"
>>>          data type
>> I added “rt:” where it was missing to the identityref statements. This
>> will be in the next revision.
>>> '8.  IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module'
>>> (ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing@2017-10-14.yang):
>>> '9.  IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module'
>>> (ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing@2017-10-14.yang):
>>>
>>>
>>>   - The ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing and ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing modules
>>> import the ietf-routing without revision (ref. rfc6087#section-4.6):
>>>
>>>
>>>      o The revision-date substatement within the imports statement
>>>SHOULD
>>> be
>>>      present if any groupings are used from the external module."
>> Since these modules are all in the same draft, I’d rather leave out the
>> revision date as it is cleaner without it. Let me discuss with my
>> co-authors.
>>>
>>> 'Appendix D. Data Tree Example':
>>>
>>>   - The example in the Appendix D. has not been updated and it must be
>>> extended in order to demonstrate a usecase of operational datastore of
>>> configuration data with different origin (intended, system, etc.)
>>> similar to the 'Appendix C. Example Data' of
>>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-05.
>> Actually, none of the examples accessed operational state date in RFC
>> 8022. However, I agree that this should be added and we’ll work on it.
>>>
>>> Nits:
>>>   - s/Figures 1/Figure 1/
>>>   - s/systemindependently/system independently/
>> Thanks for catching - I fixed these in the -01 version of
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01.txt.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>