Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Thanks for reporting this.  I'll add the missing origin.  But why did
you think forwarding and mtu should be removed?  In fact, I think I
missed <enabled>, so here's my diff:

--- ex-get-data-reply.xml
+++ ex-get-data-reply.xml
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
         <!-- other parameters from ietf-interfaces omitted -->
 
         <ipv4 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
+          <enabled>true</enabled>
           <forwarding>false</forwarding>
           <mtu>1500</mtu>
           <address>
@@ -20,12 +21,13 @@
             <prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
             <origin>static</origin>
           </address>
-          <neighbor>
+          <neighbor or:origin="or:learned">
             <ip>192.0.2.2</ip>
             <link-layer-address><!-- PPL -->00:01:02:03:04:05</link-layer-address>
           </neighbor>
         </ipv4>
         <ipv6 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
+          <enabled>true</enabled>
           <forwarding>false</forwarding>
           <mtu>1280</mtu>
           <address>



/martin



Vladimir Vassilev <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> The previous post was intended for the rfc7223bis Last Call (wrong
> subject line).
> 
> I just completed similar validation through a testcase for the
> examples in rfc7277bis ("Appendix A.  Example: NETCONF <get-config>
> reply" and "Appendix B.  Example: NETCONF <get-data> Reply")
> 
> Here there are some inconsistencies between the <get-config> output
> and the expected <get-data> output. A missing origin bug is probably
> more significant then the rest. The following patch fixes the
> inconsistencies and the testcase passes:
> 
> --- before.txt    2017-12-12 20:39:09.037576425 +0100
> +++ after.txt    2017-12-12 20:37:46.425656680 +0100
> @@ -7,14 +7,12 @@
>             <type>ianaift:ethernetCsmacd</type>
>             <!-- other parameters from ietf-interfaces omitted -->
>             <ipv4 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
> -             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
> -             <mtu>1500</mtu>
>               <address>
>                 <ip>192.0.2.1</ip>
>                 <prefix-length>24</prefix-length>
>                 <origin>static</origin>
>               </address>
> -             <neighbor>
> +             <neighbor or:origin="or:learned">
>                 <ip>192.0.2.2</ip>
>                 <link-layer-address>
>                   00:01:02:03:04:05
> @@ -22,7 +20,6 @@
>               </neighbor>
>             </ipv4>
>             <ipv6 xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-ip">
> -             <forwarding>false</forwarding>
>               <mtu>1280</mtu>
>               <address>
>                 <ip>2001:db8::10</ip>
> 
> 
> In contrast to rfc7223bis-00 I have not reviewed rfc7277bis-00 and
> this is only a report of a detected issue.
> 
> Vladimir
> 
> On 12/11/2017 05:35 PM, Vladimir Vassilev wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication.
> >
> > The focus of my review this time was on validating the module and the
> > example modules and example data through running code. I implemented
> > NMDA for the open source tools we use and added a testcase that
> > reproduces the result specified in "Appendix E. Example: NETCONF
> > <get-data> Reply" after loading the configuration specified in
> > "Appendix D.  Example: NETCONF <get-config> Reply" and providing the
> > config false; data and system originated configuration as needed. I
> > can confirm the implementation validated the example modules and the
> > example data producing identical output.
> >
> > IMO the examples are demonstrating well the concept of NMDA and its
> > application for the ietf-interfaces module.
> >
> > I had an issue with a bug in [e-mail] I
> > had to fix in order to use the <get-data> RPC. The bug is already
> > reported on the mailing-list.
> >
> > diff ietf-patched/[e-mail]
> > ietf-draft/[e-mail]
> > 140c140
> > <         when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "ds:operational")';
> > ---
> >>         when 'derived-from-or-self(../datastore, "or:operational")';
> >
> > Vladimir
> >
> >
> > On 11/28/2017 08:29 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >> All,
> >>
> >> This starts a two-week working group last call on
> >> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
> >>
> >> Please recall that this update's intention is to
> >> modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA
> >> guidelines [1].  Reviewing the diff between the two
> >> drafts [2] should reveal just this.
> >>
> >> The working group last call ends on December 12.
> >> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
> >>
> >> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
> >> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
> >> This is useful and important, even from authors.
> >>
> >> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
> >> [2]
> >> https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.txt
> >>
> >> Thank you,
> >> Netmod Chairs
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> netmod mailing list
> >> [e-mail]
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod