Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)
Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Fri, 09 March 2018 20:17 UTC
Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.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 2FEFA120047; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:17:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 2PmRQqjUFuHp; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:17:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 D177D1275F4; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 12:17:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from Svantevit.local (99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w29KHGNO093617 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Mar 2018 14:17:19 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host 99-152-146-228.lightspeed.dllstx.sbcglobal.net [99.152.146.228] claimed to be Svantevit.local
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "Robert Wilton -X (rwilton - ENSOFT LIMITED at Cisco)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org>
References: <152050158005.21412.3389388204390015375.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABCOCHSmCioJPNM5b9J-5WCsXe_J2jMzKKCD8fw02uh-D5nNdA@mail.gmail.com> <e627d122-a709-c41c-b58a-b5890b8d2103@nostrum.com> <72ff2814-611e-929d-0e8f-298e26a0da32@cisco.com> <12782E03-F1DF-4D8B-BC8D-80EFE0EFE4F4@cisco.com>
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <c59fea46-fe0f-3995-cdb0-60c41a3a8f7e@nostrum.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 14:17:11 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <12782E03-F1DF-4D8B-BC8D-80EFE0EFE4F4@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------7940F3F1AFA9CA591DE36030"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/afqWVZ2-NMYoLIBARTGNfuc58Us>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adam Roach'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: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 20:17:28 -0000
On 3/9/18 9:35 AM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote: > > As the editor of RFC 8294, I can confirm that we did not reach > consensus on whether to use easily understandable regular expressions > versus regular expressions that precisely validate the input string. > During the protracted Working Group last call for this document, there > were strong proponents of both lines of thinking. Given that we had > started with the more complex precise regular expressions, that is > what was retained (e.g., for BGP route-targets). > Okay, this is helpful input. I raised the issue because rfc6087bis appears to be designed as a style guide. Having reviewed several YANG modules and seeing somewhat varied philosophies in this regard, it seemed like a prime candidate for including in such a guide, and I brought it up only because it was conspicuous by its absence. I wasn't intending to express a preference for one end of the spectrum or the other; I simply thought it was something that belonged in the document. I can't determine from the conversation so far whether the discussions on rfc6087bis explicitly included this topic and decided not to cover it, or whether it was simply not brought up. However, the quoted text above tells me that reaching a quick consensus by the community of interest on the topic is pretty unlikely. Consequently, including such guidance probably means that the working group will need to have additional conversations about what such guidance would say. I'll leave it to the responsible AD to determine whether the document should go back to the working group for explicit consideration of this topic, or whether it should move forward without any guidance on the topic of regex completelness-versus-simplicity trade-offs. /a
- [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Adam Roach
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Adam Roach
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Adam Roach
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Acee Lindem (acee)
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Adam Roach
- Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-i… Kent Watsen