Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06

Elwyn Davies <> Wed, 06 March 2019 20:09 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D12CE13104B; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:09:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.533
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.533 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7kIQsC1yxTlJ; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:09:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 084A2128701; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:09:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([] helo=[]) by with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_CHACHA20_POLY1305:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from <>) id 1h1cPj-0004AS-TN; Wed, 06 Mar 2019 19:41:19 +0000
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 19:39:53 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Importance: normal
From: Elwyn Davies <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=""
Message-ID: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2019 20:09:07 -0000

Hi.After completing my review, I realized that there was a further minor issue related to the possible values of tag prefixes, possible values of standardized prefixes and behaviour of implementations in the face of tag prefixes or values that are not in the relevant registries.I think that the text in s2 should be reinforced to emphasise that the only prefixes that should be expected are those in the IANA registry defined in s7.1.Either a new section or possibly in s3 text should be added to define the behaviour of YANG implementations that encounter tags with prefixes that are not in the s7.1 registry and tags with prefix ietf: that are not in the s7.2 registry.Regards,Elwyn Davies    Sent from Samsung tablet.
-------- Original message --------From: Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <> Date: 06/03/2019  00:26  (GMT+00:00) To: Cc:,, Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of
  draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06 Reviewer: Elwyn DaviesReview result: Almost ReadyI am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General AreaReview Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processedby the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments justlike any other last call comments.For more information, please see the FAQ at<>.Document: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06Reviewer: Elwyn DaviesReview Date: 2019-03-05IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-03IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechatSummary:Almost ready.  There are a couple of minor issues and a small number of nits. Apologies for the slightly late delivery of the review.Major issues:NoneMinor issues:Abstract/s1: I would judge that RFC 8407 ought to be normative since it isupdated.S4.2: using the Netmod working group as contact point for the module is notfuture proof.  I am  not sure what the correct contact ought to be: IESG?S7.2: [This is a thought that occurred to me...] ought there to be an ietf:security tag?S9: I would consider RFCs 8199, 8340, 8342 and 8407 to be normativeNits/editorial comments:Abstract: s/modules/module's/Abstract:OLD:This document also provides guidance to future model writers, as such, thisdocument updates RFC8407.NEW:This document also provides guidance to future model writers; as such, thisdocument updates RFC8407.ENDSS1.1, title: s/use cases of/use cases for/S1.1, para 1: s/documents progression/document's development/S1.1, paras 2, 3 and 5: Suggest s/E.g./For example/S1.1, para 4: s/e.g./e.g.,/S2, para 1:   > All tags SHOULD begin with a prefix indicating who owns their definition.If I read correctly, the YANG definition in s4.2 REQUIRES that all tags have aprefix.  For clarity, it would better if this read:   All tags MUST begin with a prefix; it is intended that this prefix SHOULD   [or maybe 'should'] indicate  the ownership or origination of the definition.S2, para 1: s/yang type/YANG type/ (I think)S2.2: s/follwing/following/S3.1, para 2:OLD:If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also be Section2.1. Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new standard tags to the IANAregistry, and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.NEW:If the module is defined in an IETF standards track document, the tags MUST usethe prefix defined in Section 2.1. Thus, definitions of new modules can drivethe addition of new standard tags to the IANA registry defined in Section 7.2,and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.ENDSS3.2: s/standard/IETF Standard/S3.3: It would be useful to introduce the term 'masking' used later in the YANGmodule definition.S4.1: I think this usage of RFC 8340 makes it normative.S4.2, extension module-tag definition: This should contain a pointer to RFC8342 which discusses the system origin concept.Major issues:Minor issues:Nits/editorial comments:_______________________________________________Gen-art mailing listGen-art@ietf.org