Re: [netmod] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-15 references

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

Clyde

What  concerns me most is that AFAICT anything that is referenced in a
YANG module is a Normative Reference in the RFC that defines it and you
do not have those two I-D in the list of references.

Since they have not been published, then they would appear as I-Ds in
the references and the RFC Editor knows to on the one hand, hold up the
publication of the referring I-D until until the references become RFC,
and on the other hand insert the RFC number when they do.

I note that in other modules, I see no RFC for an import.  Strictly one
is not needed since the name should be unique and can be derefenced but
it is nice to have (SNMP usually has it).

But as I say, it is the lack of Normative Reference that worries me
most.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; "Kent Watsen"
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2017 5:53 PM

> Tom,
>
> The agreement was that I should use “xxxx” until the two unapproved
RFCs that the model depends on are assigned numbers.
>
>      RFC xxxx: Keystore Management
>      RFC xxxx: Transport Layer Security (TLS) Client";
>
> Imported are:
>
>   import ietf-tls-client {
>     prefix tlsc;
>   }
>
>   import ietf-keystore {
>     prefix ks;
>   }
>
>
> Have numbers been assigned?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
> On 8/9/17, 4:32 AM, "t.petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>     Clyde
>
>     You use xxxx as a placeholder for three different RFC and two of
these
>     do not appear AFAICT in the list of References.
>
>     This might be a challenge for the RFC Editor.
>
>     Tom Petch
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>
>     Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 6:48 PM
>
>
>     > Hi Alex,
>     >
>     > Answers inline as [clyde]…
>     >
>     > On 7/17/17, 4:20 PM, "netmod on behalf of Alex Campbell"
>     <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]>
wrote:
>     >
>     >     I am considering to implement the data model in this draft.
>     (dependent on business priorities of course)
>     >     I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues.
>     >
>     >     * I see pattern-match is specified to use POSIX 1003.2
regular
>     expressions. This is presumably for compatibility with existing
>     implementations; however it is inconsistent with most of YANG
(which is
>     specified to use XPath regular expressions) - unless these are the
same.
>     >
>     > [clyde] I believe that my answer in the other thread explains
why we
>     used Posix 1003.2 – it is commonly used.
>     >
>     >     * pattern-match is inside the facility-filter container;
common
>     sense says this is wrong as pattern-match has nothing to do with
>     facilities.
>     >
>     > [clyde] I will move pattern-match up one level in the next
version of
>     the draft. Thanks for catching this!
>     >
>     >     * The advanced-compare container groups together two nodes
that
>     share a common "when" and "if-feature" statement, but don't seem
to have
>     any semantic relation to each other. Are there general guidelines
on
>     when to use a container?
>     >
>     > [clyde] The confusion may come as a result of the when clause
>     appearing before the if-feature clause which is set by the IETF
>     statement order recommendation.
>     >
>     > The when construct was suggested by Martin Björklund as a way of
>     solving the case that advanced-compare does not apply for the ‘all
’ and
>     ‘none’ case.
>     >
>     > The if-feature applies to the entire container – it is either
>     supported or not.
>     >
>     >     * The advanced-compare container has a description starting
with
>     "This leaf ..." even though it is not a leaf.
>     >
>     > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft.
>     >
>     >     * The examples are missing <facility-filter> nodes.
>     >
>     > [clyde] This will be fixed in the next draft.
>     >
>     >     * Perhaps there should be more consistent terminology for
>     receivers of syslog messages; both "collectors" and "actions" are
used
>     in the draft. RFC 5424 uses "collector" for the ultimate recipient
of a
>     log message - which might not be applicable, because the sending
system
>     has no idea whether the receiving system is a collector or a
relay.
>     >
>     > [clyde] The definition of “collector” in RFC 5424 is: A
"collector"
>     gathers syslog content for further analysis.
>     >
>     > actions relate to the “further analysis” taken by the
 “collector”.
>     >
>     > “Collectors” appears in the model under the remote action and I
>     believe the usage is correct:
>     >       container remote {
>     >         if-feature remote-action;
>     >         description
>     >           "This container describes the configuration parameters
for
>     >            forwarding syslog messages to remote relays or
>     collectors.";
>     >
>     > I will revise the description of these terms in the next draft.
>     >
>     > Thanks,
>     >
>     > Clyde
>     >
>     >     ________________________________________
>     >     From: netmod <[e-mail]> on behalf of Kent
Watsen
>     <[e-mail]>
>     >     Sent: Saturday, 8 July 2017 6:34 a.m.
>
>
>
>