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

["Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>]

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)" <[e-mail]> 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" <[e-mail]>
    > 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" <[e-mail]>
    >> To: <[e-mail]>
    >> Cc: <[e-mail]>
    >> 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
    >>> [e-mail]
    >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > netmod mailing list
    > [e-mail]
    > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod