[netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

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/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11s-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