Re: [netmod] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Wed, 07 March 2018 22:25 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 4A5C712D964 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:25:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 Ucf-lcXRHzdC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:25:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22f.google.com (mail-qt0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514BE127419 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id m13so4559283qtg.13 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:25:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jPMdBLZXm+4SKjvNYwnkTlppczszLj2lbSWhpprXkEs=; b=0ihZJkOcN5ckAwQQJ0K+8KV0m2LVjTx3VHbOSitJY7uJGzVUGZ2fhlVB8LMLJW32Rv 7YXew2769Z+AWkmdeOV2Bfq1QaWh+EOWUD80YRPEU1vYmp3kJ1SMdS+SQ9Dm0xzEJOwB 84KFBs6XJBvMfd3U/JfaZpR+ckQ0D25Rb3QMsDCbO2copKycTqTIYLzlN7/OjMtcKeEm Y5L6V+LSx/aQ71NKm+oaLEyEoDZIqw/kwAw0R3PVTeU8zua7yV0Tq+FcP2QgqUvYiW89 PGlJVX9JOiDMeJDX1OqGEBvYNiBxsRsPbyGhSQ/kYcC24FrsdNijv7JzbDdvReSwQVKC b0zA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jPMdBLZXm+4SKjvNYwnkTlppczszLj2lbSWhpprXkEs=; b=cuDYBVnmOTnxSwtldnNZA7jnzL5YO8eWNzSxtJAB32Pe9XIeQqNGKCGG9eZx/42B/F MZZcL8mNFGnmm0mMwa0HYZ5Giuq2rLclc6QGv4gdeFcyYCFM2FwbTBvORQBBh2Up/4uX fJ0wA9umIyfpRxl+OO6fZyoWMGz07w7e0ZSDInaO+LkucHPGL+jAttDz/AlUZ3njC9yM uz+qeD/G3ds5t83QZx9vYjPNeeobtoL3dgvqu0axX4EC1NaYmmQu1XC/YQvRCMKXUCRF VQ24eFUytbnSkJz7Er3LUSbaCJyEaWdiahv8ECORt+GFFdOvdy/9DCAzVW6ceS9SONzx 0+Vw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7GIYD94LNbCntu7MgnxXRW5Yl23/jq/lzt2AHEtXhs34dFyGL4Q HhpMptabX6hk/EaX9APC32/LjYmxANz8cDB/Wy0ZDw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELv3Qys1bcBns7208izQNjBXGlvCaQti/CtwgJNN+R5PlY9uxDcxeHs+xhhZJXOncKS6Du/T0Rf3yabadz2oQvo=
X-Received: by 10.237.56.34 with SMTP id j31mr37668449qte.208.1520461541392; Wed, 07 Mar 2018 14:25:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.200.37.176 with HTTP; Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:25:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHTXy9HudR3XKS2u6fbi2Lyfr5WmTxMAn4P7cg=p6s+RnA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <152045215867.17597.99576332554022377.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABCOCHTY0kkfvLT9AjM+9-rtoU30j1ijg8bkKG=iNJOzAH9nhw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBM5zvwYHCAEUi+Sg7zjLk5pFwTANXidHkZwstnpjHLezA@mail.gmail.com> <CABCOCHTXy9HudR3XKS2u6fbi2Lyfr5WmTxMAn4P7cg=p6s+RnA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 14:25:00 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMGfRNuTa9dN8WXrY7iAZwLvQNQ8of1C7s_wTiwW+zaXg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org, NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113b7f1811dc9d0566da0a32"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Yp1vIgfWMWZzk4O-m6xR7nWV1JQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)
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: Wed, 07 Mar 2018 22:25:46 -0000

Hi Andy,

I don't want to overrotate on period, as I was just using it as an example.

As I said, there are a pile of other characters that are not in either set.
Are
they allowed or not?

-Ekr


On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>; wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>; wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: No Objection
>>>>
>>>> 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/stat
>>>> ement/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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis.txt:500
>>>>    normative, if the module itself is considered normative, and not an
>>>>    example module or example YANG fragment.  The use of keywords defined
>>>>    in [RFC2119] apply to YANG description statements in normative
>>>> I think you probably want to rewrite this as:
>>>>
>>>> "Note that if the module itself is considered normative and not an
>>>> example
>>>> module or example YANG fragment, then all YANG statements..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>    o  Prefixes are never allowed for built in data types and YANG
>>>>       keywords.
>>>> I'm not sure I understand what this means. Is the idea that I can't use
>>>> "example-import" somewhere?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The external keyword "example:import" is not the same as the YANG
>>> keyword "import"
>>> YANG keywords are not allowed to have prefixes.
>>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>    character MAY be used if the identifier represents a well-known value
>>>>    that uses these characters.
>>>> Is this text saying that only characters in these two subsets are
>>>> allowed and
>>>> therefore, for instance "." is forbidden
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This text is suggesting the characters that SHOULD be used.
>>> The dot and dash chars are not included. The text specifies which
>>> characters are included.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry, I am still confused. Here's the original text:
>>
>>    Identifiers SHOULD follow a consistent naming pattern throughout the
>>    module.  Only lower-case letters, numbers, and dashes SHOULD be used
>>    in identifier names.  Upper-case characters and the underscore
>>    character MAY be used if the identifier represents a well-known value
>>    that uses these characters.
>>
>> There are other characters that are not in either of these sets. Are you
>> saying
>> that they can't be used under any conditions?
>>
>>
> I will add the period charater to the list
>
>
>
>> -Ekr
>>
>>
>
> Andy
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>    It is RECOMMENDED that only valid YANG modules be included in
>>>>    documents, whether or not they are published yet.  This allows:
>>>> For clarify, I assume you mean "the modules are published yet"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OK
>>>
>>>
>>>>    The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis]
>>>>    does not support parameter access control for RPC operations.  The
>>>>    user is given permission (or not) to invoke the RPC operation with
>>>> This might be slightly clearer if you said "parameter-based access
>>>> control"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> OK
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>