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

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:25 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 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?
>
>
That is the only other character allowed in YANG not mentioned in this
section.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-6.2


-Ekr
>
>
Andy


>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:56 PM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 1:44 PM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 11:49 AM, Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>