Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 27 September 2017 10:24 UTC
Return-Path: <bclaise@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 359CC13498B; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:24:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, 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 rfSF7n0q-YnB; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A9161345AE; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 03:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7569; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1506507893; x=1507717493; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z+HnMdcTy6P0p+jYTGYp8n1Don7FHqppl7kFx6iRlFQ=; b=Q1QaesLio+y4yCOOFVm82bPnE3hELpSqe1ILopl/6Mru8SAKeYsiBly+ CYfkqkCsEDFEZLC9G3yx+d9uTDYjnEoWy111FL7z1/HhO97kdgN1GZGtc n+dAT6rtEpJ5BkRG9iclthcpUXXNdwiETm5h3cENA036xeah9s1KQaaqT o=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.42,444,1500940800"; d="scan'208";a="657859887"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 27 Sep 2017 10:24:51 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v8RAOoNu012777; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:24:50 GMT
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>, "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwildes@cisco.com>
Cc: "draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model@ietf.org>
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>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <8e873d52-a6bd-87ee-9ff5-62c85eb5b6dc@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:24:50 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5CE9EE07-D75D-4E5C-BC70-1F969732A526@juniper.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/eaRUGdUFa2CmFXl3WlR6Z_NvQfc>
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 10:24:56 -0000
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
- [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… Clyde Wildes (cwildes)
- Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup iss… t.petch