Re: [netmod] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Wed, 22 April 2020 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <01000171a299113b-44c32323-8efd-4066-9002-bf871f42b7b8-000000@amazonses.watsen.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 4023A3A0F46; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 KMI47f_mvXZw; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10BFE3A0F45; Wed, 22 Apr 2020 08:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1587570872; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=rWot6NmcSSJyFIkK3kKUJtsH3nXyk3m6AhO/GwzsGWM=; b=TmcLgr+wlk9qGIvrZdmlCKlZdwLv+qvQ7FJCmVNtanyf+3pxCoVEDCTl9wohcrZs rpcvipcP6vjp1Q70piUSLPAsSaX5H98+EWvuWA+ZbvJRwf4F4zsU/4UgtP1j4386wW7 VdR43fz3RNyK8Yr6/83gilRySiHnXth2un1TY0sA=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <01000171a299113b-44c32323-8efd-4066-9002-bf871f42b7b8-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0C00133B-C4A8-4492-ADC3-BF460314B121"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2020 15:54:32 +0000
In-Reply-To: <BY5PR11MB4355E16D08FD4B8EAAC1CFF0B5D20@BY5PR11MB4355.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, "netmod-chairs@ietf.org" <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD620C2A@dggeml511-mbx.china.huawei.com> <010001719d742c56-71daa55d-c510-4ab5-937d-fbb2d78017aa-000000@email.amazonses.com> <BY5PR11MB4355E16D08FD4B8EAAC1CFF0B5D20@BY5PR11MB4355.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.04.22-54.240.8.88
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/ZUOVUclOlFiQt3Gd9aSIQA7JSEk>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 22 Apr 2020 15:54:37 -0000

[Roman: for this draft, the takeaway is that Qin’s section deviates from the template because the module doesn’t define all the parts typically found in a YANG module]


Hi Rob,

> [RW]
> Perhaps add such as section in [], and mark it to be removed before publication.
>  
> E.g. [RFC Editor: Please remove this comment before publication. For reviewers:  This section has been modified from the standard template because …]

Yes, this idea was coming to me as I was writing the above, but I thought it useful still to agree that the RFCs should never be published with a reference to the template, whether or not the Security Considerations section conforms to it or not.


> I’m obviously not saying that we need to do this for this document, just as a suggestion for future documents.

Agreed.

>  
> Regards,
> Rob

Kent  // as chair and shepherd