Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Mon, 13 May 2013 10:34 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@cisco.com>
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 64BC421F89E2; Mon, 13 May 2013 03:34:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.309
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.309 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.290, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 t+1UqbXohvht; Mon, 13 May 2013 03:34:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from av-tac-bru.cisco.com (weird-brew.cisco.com [144.254.15.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2044921F84B1; Mon, 13 May 2013 03:34:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned
Received: from strange-brew.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-bru.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4DAYNBu029679; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:34:24 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.60.67.87] (ams-bclaise-8916.cisco.com [10.60.67.87]) by strange-brew.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r4DAXbo4004285; Mon, 13 May 2013 12:33:52 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <5190C181.8020500@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:33:37 +0200
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Joel M. Halpern" <jmh@joelhalpern.com>
References: <5170722E.2070401@nostrum.com> <5171C416.5070105@joelhalpern.com> <518D0635.7040301@joelhalpern.com>
In-Reply-To: <518D0635.7040301@joelhalpern.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis.all@tools.ietf.org, gen-art@ietf.org, "A. Jean Mahoney" <mahoney@nostrum.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Review: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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, 13 May 2013 10:34:51 -0000

Forwarding to the authors and WG

Regards, Benoit
> I am guessing that the authors intended the addition of the text 
> emphasizing that the no-zone typedefs are derived general typedef 
> addresses the difference in the patterns.
>
> Is there a YANG rule that says tat if typedef X is derived from 
> typedef Y then the string for X must match the pattern for X and the 
> pattern for Y?  If so, then my concern below is misplaced. (The fact 
> that I find the vague pattern for the child misleading is not a fault 
> with the document, but rather in my head, under that requirement.)
>
> Yours,
> Joel
>
> On 4/19/2013 6:24 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
>> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
>> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>>
>> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.
>>
>> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
>> you may receive.
>>
>> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis-01
>>      Common YANG Data Types
>> Reviewer: Joel M. Halpern
>> Review Date: 19-April-2013
>> IETF LC End Date: 1-May-2013
>> IESG Telechat date: N/A
>>
>> Summary: This document is nearly ready for publication as a Standards
>> Track RFC
>>
>> Major issues:
>>      (The following may well be a non-issue.)
>>      In the revision of the ietf-inet-types, the patterns for the new
>> ip4-address-no-zone and ipv6-address-no-zone are drastically simplified
>> from the ipv4-address and ipv6-address patterns.  The new
>> ipv4-address-no-zone allows any sequence of decimal digits an periods,
>> while the original was carefully defined as dotted quads of 0..255.
>> Similarly, te ipv6-address-no-zone allows any arbitrary sequence of hex
>> digits and colons.  The original patterns were very careful to match
>> rules for validity.  Is there a reason for the change.
>>
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> Nits/editorial comments:
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gen-art mailing list
>> Gen-art@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
>>
>
>