Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Fri, 09 February 2018 21:27 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 C6666126D05 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:27:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.491
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (2048-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=juniper.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GMYT_lR7fhDQ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FFC91242F7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108156.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w19LNawE031095; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:27:23 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=EPOJUG6YHp0kBV67+ubWBMk5MDXPFERWjOQqN8PE5bQ=; b=DKeWaE8ioQ8ZfyO1BgpeQ3VLfcClFfzVMemmO9zbTynci3b/uy9rLoB+74Ouo6ZDWmdW J0UyqV9xZOynaJIyn52fwSnUo1QnGVmegtULA0VQ05V9MFiF2JqWrh87KMsJE4RItHXR NjZB+ve0QGSPBBOrmz46moCNlcuSKIY748MKmKa9SCV0qHEon+/OIUkDN3X0qrVwV73T nMYeVQmSm9noPjJEkQEZkbJYPAvxmKaXpJOGgCWwC+1qGGSnhpOuPjvcqzXXpTEIzwpE I049pSVkUQMYFBkxNxOfLnQJbTVwDVXHJYyCr8+vuX5snYyHGdONEe4roc+GUjOIns2v dg==
Received: from nam02-sn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-sn1nam02lp0023.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.23]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2g1kdnr0ja-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:27:23 -0800
Received: from DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.240.147) by DM5PR05MB3579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.242.160) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.506.7; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 21:27:22 +0000
Received: from DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7433:3915:f20d:6747]) by DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::7433:3915:f20d:6747%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0506.007; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 21:27:22 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16
Thread-Index: AQHToBO3CuCKGPD7x0Ol5E7YFjuR5KOZN7QAgAL77KeAABHwgA==
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 21:27:22 +0000
Message-ID: <296DAB6D-9A99-4FD2-A8F9-65A4D2206407@juniper.net>
References: <e1f4f27a-d982-b248-f0e1-7093dc2f63e8@cisco.com> <6f96ec70-1532-5d99-97d1-5d5531e7865e@cisco.com> <6BAC6B11-90A9-4CA1-AE53-FFAC084FB76E@juniper.net> <5c2ae0a9-b4b9-3d13-395e-1c779f99f941@cisco.com> <01f501d3a013$72e66180$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CABCOCHRQZ7+9t4+q_qPjpcc0PP6amAYLG8tvLc6BeBzcPoBCvA@mail.gmail.com> <026001d3a1b9$9d382340$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <026001d3a1b9$9d382340$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR05MB3579; 6:TDTqi6krT5Qo8Ep8xHppq8ljPRpSFK7o9kdBcOmed5tpmGDkKD+JVM7S/csyfozJ4MjSUt26tXCK8jDuOhVz17JO0eKlUJTy6afSaZ9Q04nYfNgpm+S4rtq/EdnjgD9zDgfBJUFBvN1fTloZQQpcYUfXz1T8DxUoc84U/nq4lVfySqLMtRD+x77cIRxBfeWf5x688ddUL77TZRCkvwRuVx1ThYlq2GMpqNtJ2cPhH4NmG61vYf508Q0nRAxUgC9owOEkXdcatM14bYgRJvaBMEC8AZGIzfcta3zPrvSBFOPhIy90JudXahNr9Ji73S/hcOi7uz/ENCw76N2odNTW4Y5N7x/TOMTnR36XGtlmk7AHSeGiTN1KTtzPAaF6GJjP; 5:qdwFY5uY1yVZji9RYZPzmkmL6VQQbxk3WtMo3ncpp3EJUpqs8Xp0qcJWUHi68HroYmuVkhFt5GczyTSiV8EESQiXdNZHPW6OOpzS1Hu5J8PsVNHTnR0bZWnCQHPNjM23YYT6s/GHvKSp07KWFWnbD8ORjw4M3NYRqel6TRMdlgY=; 24:YHQ3350QvNH1f+vM+fZwsIpD7DgC5m/Sa61gdX3hO1HvM1J2IB5Ti6HvyHuBxGmeoKAQvoO11dImyS3gAgwsATu9bK2ck0Oie6f60rInKM4=; 7:NmTk1tclvfwISplVzRU9u824eTH5ZES9g6MVFOoa6jL3PyQEoLGk/ieAzeklA6+IFxVQ8qV7U/of6EXsz2M8fCUqnZvj3LQq+Dwzaqc3GNpm1kIpK8g5Bq5da6Hs0dEjDT7I4CYvB3C4UyMgVXxYwm5L/yFKR4A7c9xCPSEaFOKE8f6Ey+8DN2LqpfEtg+q65d1AbA4r6jL76fgGu2cRsxBKO5hqURfM4IZg44IjaYn9qfH0SHecsPfLeuHieNCW
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: fcc7b90b-89c1-4942-ddaa-08d57003e7f2
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:(178726229863574); BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603307)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR05MB3579:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR05MB3579FA6EB6D17DB622E716E4A5F20@DM5PR05MB3579.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(178726229863574)(10436049006162)(166708455590820);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(6040501)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(3231101)(2400082)(944501161)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041288)(201703131423095)(201703031522075)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123564045)(20161123562045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579;
x-forefront-prvs: 057859F9C5
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(396003)(39860400002)(39380400002)(366004)(346002)(376002)(199004)(13464003)(189003)(8676002)(83716003)(106356001)(6506007)(8936002)(86362001)(575784001)(81156014)(8666007)(59450400001)(97736004)(81166006)(33656002)(186003)(76176011)(102836004)(478600001)(82746002)(966005)(3280700002)(26005)(6306002)(66066001)(5660300001)(7736002)(6116002)(2906002)(14454004)(296002)(4326008)(25786009)(93886005)(6486002)(6436002)(3846002)(68736007)(6246003)(105586002)(3660700001)(2900100001)(305945005)(99286004)(110136005)(6512007)(36756003)(53936002)(53546011)(5250100002)(229853002)(83506002)(2950100002)(58126008)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR05MB3579; H:DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 6xPQoO6S8kef8TCPLQs6YvyseoNykA8wmwYNelEtkCqMaws7PWqt2ifbX8bse/atITEoos8li8capu2edLpRHg==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <1556E40242CA064E904B19C5229CABBA@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: fcc7b90b-89c1-4942-ddaa-08d57003e7f2
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 Feb 2018 21:27:22.0678 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR05MB3579
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-02-09_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1802090270
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/QeWZJjExlh8RPdOmC3Y_-gtaFAs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 21:27:30 -0000

Hi Tom,

I know where you're going with this, and I agree, but as we're past AD-review, maybe this is a good candidate for guidelines-next?

  https://github.com/netmod-wg/guidelines-next/issues

Kent // shepherd


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Bierman" <andy@yumaworks.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2018 5:48 PM

> On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:58 AM, t.petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > Andy
> >
> > If an RFC is mentioned in a Description clause, should it also
appear in
> > the related Reference clause?
>
> yes -- there are many places in 6087bis that mention the
reference-stmt
>
> e.g.:
>
>    If the notification semantics are defined in an external document
>    (other than another YANG module indicated by an import statement),
>    then a reference statement MUST be present.
>
> I cannot find any text that says it is OK or not OK to also put
> the reference in the description-stmt.

Andy

Just to be clear, what I am seeing is RFCxxxx in a Description clause in
a YANG module but not appearing anywhere else in the I-D, not in a
Reference clause or in the I-D Reference sections or anywhere.

e.g. in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang
 leaf uuid {
            type yang:uuid;
            description "A Universally Unique IDentifier in the string
representation
                defined in RFC 4122.

4122 appears in three such Description clauses but nowhere else; I am
thinking that it should also be in a Reference clause as well

Tom Petch

> > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-05 has examples of this not being the
case,
> > as I mention in a recent post.  I assumed that they should be but
cannot
> > see any discussion of this in RFC6087bis
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >
> Andy
>

_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=CT9Hf4F4H2prnOg0sLp9WvPE51q0zSwxAufnFGEFI38&s=rKLyZFgHK884Wvw2Xj2gu2_xu6PRJDZekh3FgzhTzI0&e=