Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00.txt

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Mon, 25 March 2013 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 2256C21F8B27 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:27:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.949
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dTHxQ20ANDLC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D5D521F8B25 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 10:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.46]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12AEB20BC1; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:27:44 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius1.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JRNVsIiDPOgX; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:27:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60825206D7; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:27:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id CF5E4252FF47; Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:27:47 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:27:47 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <20130325172747.GA23391@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <514C93E9.8@cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <514C93E9.8@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00.txt
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 25 Mar 2013 17:27:47 -0000

Hi,

I have posted a new I-D that addresses your comments (I hope).

I also fixed the quoting bug reported by Jernej Tuljak
<jernej.tuljak@gmail.com> on the mailing list on 2013-02-24.

The diff is already available here:

http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01.txt

/js

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 06:24:57PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Juergen, NETMOD participants,
> 
> Two comments
> 
> 1.
> For the ip-address-no-zone, ipv4-address-no-zone, and
> ipv6-address-no-zone, don't you need a reference to the zone
> information in the description?
> 
>      description
>         "The ip-address-no-zone type represents an IP address without
>          zone information in an IP version neutral way.  The format
>          of the textual representations implies the IP version.";
> 
> Doesn't give me a pointer to what a zone information is. So I don't
> know what ip-address-no-zone is.
> Note: I faced the zone issue only a year ago. Before that, I had no
> clue what it was.
> 
> 
> 2.
> The section "Appendix A. Changes from RFC 6021" is pretty light:
> 
>      This version adds new type definitions to the YANG modules. For
>    the further details, see the revision statement of the YANG modules.
> 
> Take it or leave it. However, I can tell that its resolution will
> please some IESG members, specifically because the rfcdiff tool
> doesn't do a good job of comparing RFC6021 with
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-00.txt
> 
> Proposal
> 
>      This version adds new type definitions to the YANG modules. The
>    first YANG module, ietf-yang-types adds the following new data
>    types: yang-identifier, hex-string, uuid, and dotted-quad. The
>    second YANG module, ietf-inet-types, adds the following new data
>    types: ip-address-no-zone, ipv4-address-no-zone, and
>    ipv6-address-no-zone.
> 
> Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>