Re: [netmod] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Suresh,
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 8:44 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
>     draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: Discuss
>
>     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
>     this
>     introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
>     Please refer to
>     https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>     <https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html>
>     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
>     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/>
>
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     DISCUSS:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     * Section 4.25
>
>     I think this might be a simple misunderstanding but I have no idea
>     what
>     compliance with this statement implies.
>
>     "A YANG module MUST NOT be designed such that the set of modules
>     found on a
>     server implementation can be predetermined in advance."
>
>     Can you please clarify?
>
>
>
> OK to remove this sentence.
> Not sure where it came from
>
>
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     COMMENT:
>     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     Section 3.2:
>       The date looks to be contradictory between the explanatory text
>
>     "The following example is for the '2010-01-18' revision of the 
>     'ietf-foo'
>     module:"
>
>     and the actual code component defined right after
>
>                        <CODE BEGINS> file "[e-mail]"
>     ...
>                                      revision 2016-03-20 {
>     ...
>
>
>
> OK will update revision date
>
>
>     * Section 4.8
>
>     I went over this text several times to figure out what it means.
>     Can you
>     simplify this, or provide examples as to when revision dates
>     are/are not to be
>     updated.
>
>        It is not required to keep the full revision history of draft
>        versions (e.g., modules contained within Internet-Drafts). 
>     That is,
>        within a sequence of draft versions, only the most recent revision
>        need be recorded in the module.  However, whenever a new (i.e.
>        changed) version is made available (e.g., via a new version of an
>        Internet-Draft), the revision date of that new version MUST be
>        updated to a date later than that of the previous version.
>
>
> OK -- will clarify that the same revision-stmt can be reused in an 
> Internet Draft.
> The revision date is updated if the module is changed.
What we mean here is that the published RFC should contain something 
such as:

      revision 2018-01-09 {
        description
          "Updated to support NMDA.";
        reference
          "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management";
      }


As opposed to the full draft history and change log

      revision 2018-01-09 {
        description
          "Updated to support NMDA.";
        reference
          "RFC XXXX: A YANG Data Model for Interface Management";
      }

      revision 2017-11-01 {
        description
          "Updated to address AD review.";
        reference
          "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03";
      }

      revision 2017-09-01 {
        description
          "Updated to address issue X, Y, Z";
        reference
          "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-02";
      }


>
>     * Section 4.20
>
>     What does "cannot" imply here? MUST NOT? SHOULD NOT?
>
>
>
> MUST NOT -- per RFC 7950, 7.20.3
>
>
>     "The YANG "deviation" statement cannot appear in IETF YANG modules"
>
>
>
> Will change "cannot" to is not allowed to"
There is not point to repeat the RFC7950 specifications, but we want to 
add to it.
Therefore, let me propose:

OLD:

    The YANG "deviation" statement cannot appear in IETF YANG modules,
    but it can be useful for documenting server capabilities.  Deviation
    statements are not reusable and typically not shared across all
    platforms.



NEW:

    Per RFC 7950, 7.20.3, the YANG "deviation" statement is not allowed to appear in IETF YANG modules,
    but it can be useful for documenting server capabilities.  Deviation
    statements are not reusable and typically not shared across all
    platforms.

Regards, Benoit