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

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Thu, 14 September 2017 16:20 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 67A33133036; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.021
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.021 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_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 HOb43lmFzdy6; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM03-BY2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03on0135.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.42.135]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 832D6132D47; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 09:20:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=u4D7SfJtsK+sqgi0aPYAEgfWywahctvUlq4ZZeVghFs=; b=V0E7RmZL41Ts/y4rIxKPrxjhS0ozd8XG0y/3n98Sy5exvEcWHmGpKZvzgcSbVZyXqmfc981vLPA9My0cZpC7AiMCttDhcOP5vnXRjszF4mFpeqHTSG6b3JC0sfqvxPaXUiWm6bx14RLA4Igbmpp4FRiyoafxeTzcG/R+kzJKdZA=
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.22.149) by BLUPR05MB321.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.24.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.77.5; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:20:18 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) by BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) with mapi id 15.20.0035.010; Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:20:18 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Thread-Index: AQHTLHc0HPi1rZXCNUadzeG98awlR6KyydeAgAHGQp7//76jgA==
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:20:18 +0000
Message-ID: <5CE9EE07-D75D-4E5C-BC70-1F969732A526@juniper.net>
References: <49B4BE2F-6912-49BE-9E4A-830146309AB2@juniper.net> <019b01d32c76$fa7dfc40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <8CF097E4-CEB7-4C4E-AC7D-F7F896CD1BB7@juniper.net> <00ae01d32d74$49e24c20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <00ae01d32d74$49e24c20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=kwatsen@juniper.net;
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR05MB321; 6:qa12//zmGWzJe733HNXXLM12Ge8mOVXpVLNNibjHEAr87y7JrU6Nws9VdHsu3L9T+3wFH5/hdOjmsyEaGX/I7TFnOqjg3wR4EbcqHjnPrMwyuG3ccotyuZYUQbX3r+BaebeE2LHC4hMskqRNbYBi5+KyhgjmOYLMTzb4pT/fnjbwXqPDLdPs/8LZCEuDd7AObg2SEiPJNQzBzCcfahwhjl1DhmhNDbfEAdk5TOYDffrPwalGwFikBDBHxEJYA+MLbZo9QWEr1u2f1tTXmQgbDiGW2KoWmVc6XWn35vJjSNbjEYpbq+JBEDdiuClPP5M9xH3TBtyo1HkadJzeWa6HtA==; 5:yMgrQjssxbjGgnw87kgYu0P29yHIyK0jDpcn/txQJsq6ZIM0OoJY00u/pZTY5KpioZFU9PgomaygwEnXqhldZf1bvh4TowJydA25pSVlFdMV2wtO7WQhhCtMTOJ+//h66xG/kG3YVTA+4AOYLek7aw==; 24:anZp8MfRMmAz3TFaSZ6zeoKIpyK4SaMr/3QlphLvfm6MGHDmpLlGrcvErJDrKA24eO0zmh5l/yvbVH9RuRWB4kEz8W0ZYbmdjCzhkk/4OYs=; 7:2p2RvSPXyt/2/wYCoujncVcvrhnOTraWcga3SI9pJdK86WeiO6NrJR7kTM7kpSJK23tWBiJTGUvRzNawAMhlbXh/wORtpw2yq2IiKfGDNIsNpsu9dhevWYfm4gRVkfnIkBX9e0yeqWu42UQZpGOlsMRBn4RYK+Jzv5GICj/yDRgx9koeyU3q87PaErMx3i2uehkF7Mt8kNYCFFEWRH0CWggPQdrpv2iXyNpqZwOC+w0=
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: cbdf5bd3-654d-402c-ea19-08d4fb8c7dc0
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(300000500095)(300135000095)(300000501095)(300135300095)(22001)(300000502095)(300135100095)(2017030254152)(48565401081)(300000503095)(300135400095)(2017052603199)(201703131423075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(300000504095)(300135200095)(300000505095)(300135600095)(300000506095)(300135500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB321;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BLUPR05MB321:
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(138986009662008);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR05MB32113707331093C8379B29DA56F0@BLUPR05MB321.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123562025)(20161123555025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564025)(20161123560025)(20161123558100)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB321; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB321;
x-forefront-prvs: 0430FA5CB7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(376002)(346002)(39860400002)(199003)(13464003)(57704003)(377454003)(189002)(7736002)(2906002)(8676002)(3660700001)(8936002)(2501003)(105586002)(36756003)(3280700002)(305945005)(66066001)(76176999)(50986999)(6436002)(101416001)(83506001)(6306002)(54356999)(83716003)(6246003)(5660300001)(53936002)(230783001)(6506006)(316002)(93886005)(99286003)(33656002)(25786009)(6512007)(68736007)(77096006)(14454004)(97736004)(4001350100001)(4326008)(2950100002)(81156014)(229853002)(2900100001)(189998001)(82746002)(478600001)(106356001)(81166006)(966005)(575784001)(86362001)(102836003)(6486002)(6116002)(8666007)(3846002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB321; H:BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <B1AE3FF6709BD846B5000E6C87F37917@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Sep 2017 16:20:18.8308 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB321
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/H24Zw9hVNDVuZbNxgyF31XNsDVY>
Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:20:23 -0000

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" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
> To: <netmod@ietf.org>
> Cc: <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>
> 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
> > netmod@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
>
>
>
>