Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

["t.petch" <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:08 PM

> Hi Tom,
>
> Thanks.  The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match' leaf
> to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for S4.1
> to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a draft-level reference.

and I am unfamiliar with that standards body so am looking for a little
more.

Is STD-nnnn always Posix or do we need to say Posix 1003 or Posix
Std-1003 or is Std-1003 completely unrelated to Posix 1003?

Is there a difference between Std-1003.1-2008 and Posix 1003.2 ie is the
.1 or .2 significant?  You want Std-1003.1; the description contains
Posix 1003.2; the normative Reference is to Std-1003.1-2008.

You pointed out that the Normative Reference is not used; well if we can
sort out what the standard is and get the right label in Normative
References then we can - must - include this in Section 4.1 which will
resolve that comment of yours.

The discussions last July had Clyde saying he wants Posix 1003.2 so if
Std-1003 and Posix 1003 are the same but .1 and.2 are different, then
you are asking for a semantic change against Clyde's wishes.

I hope my confusion is sufficiently clear, at least to Clyde!

Tom Petch

>
> I was going to point out the typo "the the" as well, but figured
> that the RFC Editor would get it.
>
> K. // shepherd
>
>
> --
>
> Kent
>
> You flag Std-1003.1-2008 as listed as a normative reference but not
used
> anywhere in the document.  In the Descriptions, but not in the s.4.1
> references, I see
>
> This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression ...
>
> twice, which may, or may not, relate to this issue.
>
> Back in July, clyde said
> "I will insert a normative reference to POSIX 1003.2 in the next
> revision of the draft."
>
> In a similar vein, RFC6991 appears in a reference statement but
nowhere
> else.
>
> As you point out, RFC6021 is referenced but is obsoleted by RFC6991 so
> should not be.
>
> And in a slightly different vein,
>
>    registry [RFC7895]/>.  Following the format in [RFC7950]/>, the the
>
> looks odd for plain text and for the repetition of 'the'..
>
> Tom Petch
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
> To: <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM
> Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues
>
>
> > Clyde, all,
> >
> > In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following
> issues that I think need to be addressed before the document can be
sent
> to Benoit for AD review:
> >
> >
> > 1. Idnits found the following:
> >
> >   Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment
> (--).
> >
> >     ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the
> longest one
> >          being 3 characters in excess of 72.
> >
> >     ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021 (Obsoleted by RFC
6991)
> >
> >     ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587
> >
> >     == Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on line 359, but
not
> defined
> >          '[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]....'
> >
> >      == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1406, but no
> explicit
> >           reference was found in the text
> >           '[RFC7895]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen,
"YANG
> Module L...'
> >
> >      == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 1435, but no
> explicit
> >           reference was found in the text
> >           '[RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol
over
> Secure Sh...'
> >
> >
> > 2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang",  which is missing
> "@yyyy-mm-dd" in its name
> >
> > 3.  neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with
> ietf-syslog.yang.    pyang says
> >       for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement "identity" must
have
> a "description"
> >       substatement.
> >
> > 4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint:
> >       - for both examples: Missing element's "namespace". (/config)
> >       - just removing the "<config>" element envelop resolves this
> error.
> >
> > 5. the 2nd example uses IP address "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but this
> SHOULD be a
> >      domain name (e.g., foo.example.com)
> >
> > 6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed in a
> 'description' statement,
> >      there should be a 'reference' statement for that RFC.
> >
> > 7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate what they
> point at, they now all
> >      just say "leafref".  Did you do this on purpose, or are you
using
> a different tree
> >      output generator from -15?
> >
> > 8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it probably
should
> be informative.
> >
> > 9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference, but it is not
> used anywhere in the document.
> >
> > 10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but it is not
used
> anywhere in the document.
> >
> > 11. the document fails to declare its normative references to
> ietf-keystore and ietf-tls-client-server.
> >         Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx]"
> references…
> >
> > 12.  The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric.  Either put
> both registry insertions into
> >         subsections, or keep them both at the top-level…
> >
> > 13. reviewing the final document against my original YD review, I
have
> the following responses.  Let's be sure to close out these items as
> well.  Ref:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11
> s-0gOfCe8NSE
> >
> > 1. ok
> > 2. better
> > 3. should be: s/the message/these messages/  [RFC Editor might've
> caught this]
> > 4. better
> > 5. still feel the same way, but no biggee
> > 6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when, and only
> when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here."
> > 7. fixed
> > 8. fixed
> > 9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't satisfying...
> > 10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask wasn't among
them
> > 11. better
> > 12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented too, right?
> > 13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram Notation"
> > 14. fixed
> > 15. fixed
> > 16. fixed
> > 17. fine
> > 18. still a weird line brake here.  try putting the quoted string on
> the next line.
> > 19. fixed
> > 20. fixed
> > 21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines)
> > 22. fine
> >
> >
> > PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his AD review.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kent  // shepherd & yang doctor
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
>
>
>
>