Re: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ben Campbell <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: 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/statement/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-schema-mount/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Substantive:
>> 
>> §3.3, 4th paragraph: The MUST NOT seems like a statement of fact -- if no
>> schema is mounted, it doesn't seem possible for it to include anything.
> 
> Right, so this MUST NOT is directed to an implementor.  If you think
> it is stating the obvious, I'd be happy to modify this to maybe "does
> not”.

I guess it comes down to whether it is reasonably possible for an implementor to get it wrong :-)

> 
> 

>> §5, last paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? Would it ever make
>> sense to violate this?
> 
> Probably not, but it could depend on how the mount point is supposed
> to be used.  Maybe it is used in such a way that mounted rpcs are not
> applicable.
> 

Okay. Some guidance to that effect in the document would be helpful.

>> §9: The model includes RFC 2119 boilerplate, but the document itself uses the
>> newer RFC 8174 boilerplate. Is it normal to include the normative keyword
>> boilerplate in the model?
> 
> No, but in some cases models use 2119 language w/o the boilerplate and
> since models have a life on their own outside the RFC, we thought that
> it would be a good idea to clarify the intention by including the
> boilerplate.

Okay.

> 
>> If so, it should probably match that of the
>> containing document.
> 
> Yes, fixed.

Thanks!

> 
>> Editorial:
>> 
>> §1, list item 2: "... and is stable as YANG library information of the server."
>> Assuming you mean specific YANG library information rather than the general
>> concept, there is a missing article before "YANG". (This pattern repeats a few
>> time throughout the document.)
> 
> Yes, fixed.
> 
> 
> /martin