Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

[Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]>]

Hello,

The previous post was intended for the rfc7223bis Last Call (wrong 
subject line).

I just completed similar validation through a testcase for the examples 
in rfc7277bis ("Appendix A.  Example: NETCONF <get-config> reply" and 
"Appendix B.  Example: NETCONF <get-data> Reply")

Here there are some inconsistencies between the <get-config> output and 
the expected <get-data> output. A missing origin bug is probably more 
significant then the rest. The following patch fixes the inconsistencies 
and the testcase passes:

--- before.txt    2017-12-12 20:39:09.037576425 +0100
+++ after.txt    2017-12-12 20:37:46.425656680 +0100
@@ -7,14 +7,12 @@
             <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
             <!-- other parameters from ietf-interfaces omitted -->
             <ipv4 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
-             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
-             <mtu>1500</mtu>
               <address>
                 <ip>192.0.2.1</ip>
                 <prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
                 <origin>static</origin>
               </address>
-             <neighbor>
+             <neighbor or:origin="or:learned">
                 <ip>192.0.2.2</ip>
                 <link-layer-address>
                   00:01:02:03:04:05
@@ -22,7 +20,6 @@
               </neighbor>
             </ipv4>
             <ipv6 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
-             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
               <mtu>1280</mtu>
               <address>
                 <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>


In contrast to rfc7223bis-00 I have not reviewed rfc7277bis-00 and this 
is only a report of a detected issue.

Vladimir

On 12/11/2017 05:35 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.
>
> The focus of my review this time was on validating the module and the 
> example modules and example data through running code. I implemented 
> NMDA for the open source tools we use and added a testcase that 
> reproduces the result specified in "Appendix E. Example: NETCONF 
> <get-data> Reply" after loading the configuration specified in 
> "Appendix D.  Example: NETCONF <get-config> Reply" and providing the 
> config false; data and system originated configuration as needed. I 
> can confirm the implementation validated the example modules and the 
> example data producing identical output.
>
> IMO the examples are demonstrating well the concept of NMDA and its 
> application for the ietf-interfaces module.
>
> I had an issue with a bug in [e-mail] I 
> had to fix in order to use the <get-data> RPC. The bug is already 
> reported on the mailing-list.
>
> diff ietf-patched/[e-mail] 
> ietf-draft/[e-mail]
> 140c140
> <         when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "ds:operational")';
> ---
>>         when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "or:operational")';
>
> Vladimir
>
>
> On 11/28/2017 08:29 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> This starts a two-week working group last call on
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
>>
>> Please recall that this update's intention is to
>> modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA
>> guidelines [1].  Reviewing the diff between the two
>> drafts [2] should reveal just this.
>>
>> The working group last call ends on December 12.
>> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
>>
>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
>> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
>> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>>
>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
>> [2] 
>> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.txt
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Netmod Chairs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod