Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

"Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com> Wed, 27 September 2017 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <cwildes@cisco.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 17E5D134E90; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:26:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 m7iolv0cR0Ob; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:26:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B46EF1342EC; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=12050; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1506533182; x=1507742782; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=P8XyzfjqutDqCpg2/Vw1926r9dwv3dRln8waqdzRbgk=; b=P1xY12HwpN0+SXVMf/lbMFruAzyCfRYulb+TMHSK5srNbp5qFZzr1JdR q/ZeRWyurd66dtRoDnzaPm2FhISIW64wE53/J69BpBlYj3SFz7qARIH/w cJSiBBvd7V9njDCJ7BUz2PSCU15LFT5ZlMEkrUssq7OOZkHWUWLHsSbvu w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BrAgB+3stZ/5tdJa1UCRkBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNcZG4nB4NxmUwxgVQimD0KGAuESU8CGoRCVwECAQEBAQECayi?= =?us-ascii?q?FGAEBAQEDAQEhEToLDAQCAQgRBAEBAwImAgICJQsVCAgCBAENBYoxEKgogieLB?= =?us-ascii?q?AEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFgQ6CHYICgVGBaisLgnKCRYIVFC2CfC+?= =?us-ascii?q?CMQWRO49oAodcjQGCE4VuiwWVHAIRGQGBOAFXgQ54FUkSAYUHHIFndokfgRABA?= =?us-ascii?q?QE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,445,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="9508763"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Sep 2017 17:26:21 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (xch-rcd-007.cisco.com [173.37.102.17]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8RHQL9U009046 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:26:21 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com (173.36.7.25) by XCH-RCD-007.cisco.com (173.37.102.17) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:26:20 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) by XCH-ALN-015.cisco.com ([173.36.7.25]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:26:20 -0500
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com>
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Thread-Index: AQHTLHc0MtKErjQWME+Yl1a8S7HtcKKzYLeAgAEvaqSAAFV3AIAUCv4AgAAAaIA=
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:26:20 +0000
Message-ID: <8015AC50-45CE-4813-B77B-8D1D3D3BC349@cisco.com>
References: <49B4BE2F-6912-49BE-9E4A-830146309AB2@juniper.net> <019b01d32c76$fa7dfc40$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <8CF097E4-CEB7-4C4E-AC7D-F7F896CD1BB7@juniper.net> <00ae01d32d74$49e24c20$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <5CE9EE07-D75D-4E5C-BC70-1F969732A526@juniper.net> <8e873d52-a6bd-87ee-9ff5-62c85eb5b6dc@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <8e873d52-a6bd-87ee-9ff5-62c85eb5b6dc@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.154.131.1]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <17BFC603EA031446B9EC11B886657E20@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/cEuOp2D8c2D-NFmAB4LSsmIcnYQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 17:26:25 -0000

Benoit,

There were approximately 24 changes requested from you, Kent, Robert Wilton, and Tom Petch. I have made approximately half of them and will try to finish another revision of the draft by Friday.

Thanks,

Clyde

On 9/27/17, 3:24 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:

    Clyde,
    
    Do you know your next step to progress this document?
    
    Regards, Benoit
    > I meant to say something about the .1 vs .2 difference.  My comment
    > assumes that it's supposed to be .1, but we of course should use
    > whatever is correct.
    >
    > I also don't know much about that standards body.
    >
    > K.
    >
    >
    >
    > ----- Original Message -----
    > From: "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
    > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:08 PM
    >
    >> Hi Tom,
    >>
    >> Thanks.  The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match' leaf
    >> to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for S4.1
    >> to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a draft-level reference.
    > and I am unfamiliar with that standards body so am looking for a little
    > more.
    >
    > Is STD-nnnn always Posix or do we need to say Posix 1003 or Posix
    > Std-1003 or is Std-1003 completely unrelated to Posix 1003?
    >
    > Is there a difference between Std-1003.1-2008 and Posix 1003.2 ie is the
    > .1 or .2 significant?  You want Std-1003.1; the description contains
    > Posix 1003.2; the normative Reference is to Std-1003.1-2008.
    >
    > You pointed out that the Normative Reference is not used; well if we can
    > sort out what the standard is and get the right label in Normative
    > References then we can - must - include this in Section 4.1 which will
    > resolve that comment of yours.
    >
    > The discussions last July had Clyde saying he wants Posix 1003.2 so if
    > Std-1003 and Posix 1003 are the same but .1 and.2 are different, then
    > you are asking for a semantic change against Clyde's wishes.
    >
    > I hope my confusion is sufficiently clear, at least to Clyde!
    >
    > Tom Petch
    >
    >> I was going to point out the typo "the the" as well, but figured
    >> that the RFC Editor would get it.
    >>
    >> K. // shepherd
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >>
    >> Kent
    >>
    >> You flag Std-1003.1-2008 as listed as a normative reference but not
    > used
    >> anywhere in the document.  In the Descriptions, but not in the s.4.1
    >> references, I see
    >>
    >> This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression ...
    >>
    >> twice, which may, or may not, relate to this issue.
    >>
    >> Back in July, clyde said
    >> "I will insert a normative reference to POSIX 1003.2 in the next
    >> revision of the draft."
    >>
    >> In a similar vein, RFC6991 appears in a reference statement but
    > nowhere
    >> else.
    >>
    >> As you point out, RFC6021 is referenced but is obsoleted by RFC6991 so
    >> should not be.
    >>
    >> And in a slightly different vein,
    >>
    >>     registry [RFC7895]/>.  Following the format in [RFC7950]/>, the the
    >>
    >> looks odd for plain text and for the repetition of 'the'..
    >>
    >> Tom Petch
    >>
    >> ----- Original Message -----
    >> From: "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
    >> To: <netmod@ietf.org>
    >> Cc: <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>
    >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM
    >> Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues
    >>
    >>
    >>> Clyde, all,
    >>>
    >>> In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following
    >> issues that I think need to be addressed before the document can be
    > sent
    >> to Benoit for AD review:
    >>>
    >>> 1. Idnits found the following:
    >>>
    >>>    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment
    >> (--).
    >>>      ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the
    >> longest one
    >>>           being 3 characters in excess of 72.
    >>>
    >>>      ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021 (Obsoleted by RFC
    > 6991)
    >>>      ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587
    >>>
    >>>      == Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on line 359, but
    > not
    >> defined
    >>>           '[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]....'
    >>>
    >>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1406, but no
    >> explicit
    >>>            reference was found in the text
    >>>            '[RFC7895]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen,
    > "YANG
    >> Module L...'
    >>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 1435, but no
    >> explicit
    >>>            reference was found in the text
    >>>            '[RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol
    > over
    >> Secure Sh...'
    >>>
    >>> 2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang",  which is missing
    >> "@yyyy-mm-dd" in its name
    >>> 3.  neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with
    >> ietf-syslog.yang.    pyang says
    >>>        for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement "identity" must
    > have
    >> a "description"
    >>>        substatement.
    >>>
    >>> 4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint:
    >>>        - for both examples: Missing element's "namespace". (/config)
    >>>        - just removing the "<config>" element envelop resolves this
    >> error.
    >>> 5. the 2nd example uses IP address "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but this
    >> SHOULD be a
    >>>       domain name (e.g., foo.example.com)
    >>>
    >>> 6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed in a
    >> 'description' statement,
    >>>       there should be a 'reference' statement for that RFC.
    >>>
    >>> 7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate what they
    >> point at, they now all
    >>>       just say "leafref".  Did you do this on purpose, or are you
    > using
    >> a different tree
    >>>       output generator from -15?
    >>>
    >>> 8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it probably
    > should
    >> be informative.
    >>> 9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference, but it is not
    >> used anywhere in the document.
    >>> 10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but it is not
    > used
    >> anywhere in the document.
    >>> 11. the document fails to declare its normative references to
    >> ietf-keystore and ietf-tls-client-server.
    >>>          Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx]"
    >> references…
    >>> 12.  The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric.  Either put
    >> both registry insertions into
    >>>          subsections, or keep them both at the top-level…
    >>>
    >>> 13. reviewing the final document against my original YD review, I
    > have
    >> the following responses.  Let's be sure to close out these items as
    >> well.  Ref:
    > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11
    >> s-0gOfCe8NSE
    >>> 1. ok
    >>> 2. better
    >>> 3. should be: s/the message/these messages/  [RFC Editor might've
    >> caught this]
    >>> 4. better
    >>> 5. still feel the same way, but no biggee
    >>> 6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when, and only
    >> when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here."
    >>> 7. fixed
    >>> 8. fixed
    >>> 9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't satisfying...
    >>> 10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask wasn't among
    > them
    >>> 11. better
    >>> 12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented too, right?
    >>> 13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram Notation"
    >>> 14. fixed
    >>> 15. fixed
    >>> 16. fixed
    >>> 17. fine
    >>> 18. still a weird line brake here.  try putting the quoted string on
    >> the next line.
    >>> 19. fixed
    >>> 20. fixed
    >>> 21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines)
    >>> 22. fine
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his AD review.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks,
    >>> Kent  // shepherd & yang doctor
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> _______________________________________________
    >>> netmod mailing list
    >>> netmod@ietf.org
    >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > netmod mailing list
    > netmod@ietf.org
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod