[netmod] Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

The minutes for the NETMOD 120 session [0] captures this dialog:

	Tim Carey: What is the update for the best practices document and
	node-tags document

	Lou Berger: Best practices - I do not recall and will have to come back.


The update follows, in the form of the history/state of the current WGLC.


1) The chairs started the WGLC on the May 6 [1].  At this time, the document was at version -11.

2) Due to receiving no responses, the chairs extended the WGLC on June 3 [2] (still -11) and requested a YangDoctor review.  Two responses were received, both by the authors.

3) Xufeng provided a YangDoctors review on June 18 [3].  There was an exchange and then -12 was published on June 21.

4) Amanda Baber from IANA posted some concerns on June 26 [4], and -13 was published on July 3.  FWIW, I do not find a response from Amanda about if the update is okay, but I can see that her comment about “3des -> triple-res” was not addressed.

5) Xufeng and Med continue discussion, and -14 was published on July 5.

That’s it.  No other comments are in the mail archive.  The WGLC never closed.  It is fair to say that few reviews were received after the extension on June 3.  


As a contributor, looking at the current version I noticed the following issues, which I hope will be received as WGLC comments.  This is not a complete review, just some things I noticed jumping around diffs.

a) In Section 4.30.3, the examples are folded incorrectly (RFC 8792).  They use some (unsupported) mixed of the `\` or the `\\` strategies.  More than that, YANG modules can avoid folding, in many cases, by converting a long line into a sequence of line-terminated string concatenations.  I suggest trying this to eliminate the folding altogether.

b) In Section 4.30.3.1: the “reference” statement isn’t described like it is in Section 4.30.3.2.  Should it be?

c) In Section 4.30.3.2: I still don’t understand why we’d want the “reference” statement pointing to IANA_FOO_URL_With_REV.  For example, a module-reader would have to be in possession of the module in order to see this statement’s value, so value of pointing someone to the module when they already have it doesn’t make sense to me.

d) In both Appendix B and C: replace "the format is (year-month-day)” with "the format is (YYYY-MM-DD)”...or otherwise specify what is meant by "year-month-day”elsewhere?


As chair again, the consensus is unclear.  It would great if Amanda could reply to Med’s update, and if my comments above could be addressed.   

Also, would anyone in the WG like to be the Document Shepherd for this draft?   Being a shepherd provides valuable insight to how the IETF process works.  It would be helpful to start the Shepherd Write-up process.


[0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-120-netmod-202407222000/
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/u5Vk7_DgeXAOuq4h02hROfTYQaU/
[2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/G0ItnC5vaTXSAuh5XX-1p4mD7MA/
[3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/Lto49pXDCpKdUdR-ISUrRFVWhBw/
[4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/HC2ipQcCLN_QaGlDjhDvCz_P_OI/


Kent