Re: [netmod] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07

Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> Sun, 07 January 2018 15:03 UTC

Return-Path: <jclarke@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 B47AA12422F; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 07:03:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, 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 8FG3Xs-XD5HS; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 07:03:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11CEA126579; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 07:03:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1962; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515337412; x=1516547012; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=jI6QtjQFnysCxu+t9scQaRJBUYfPuCvPg/o4DFF21Js=; b=b3ViSjZJwB8EuDgEzb5pxrIsLELRUhcSB4JebhIkmbxEOTH1CHFrZWvZ SQjlYlMH3q8tDCYvl1DxmsKf4VBhf2X9QgMgB1OtngTzqyGNwxRnxE0w4 XTXwjash2sw72gXtWw7l2E6ICaJtxILjrzgGVpfxkv/z/2fFf2sFITYip M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,326,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="52803039"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Jan 2018 15:03:31 +0000
Received: from [10.118.87.84] (rtp-jclarke-nitro3.cisco.com [10.118.87.84]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w07F3Uqj024843; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 15:03:31 GMT
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <151527064556.32311.7928092264244016989@ietfa.amsl.com> <D676C20D.E8A40%acee@cisco.com>
From: Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com>
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <5d2859cb-e43a-3eda-5b20-172177a6fe6c@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 10:03:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D676C20D.E8A40%acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/gb-AUzOaEdmapg6CafHT1O3_EiQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07
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: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 15:03:34 -0000

On 1/6/18 18:27, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
>>The only substantive comment I have is in the comments ahead of the
>>now-obsolete state branches.  Currently, these comments just state
>>"Obsolete
>>State Data".  I wonder if it would make sense to add a bit more text here
>>to
>>reference why these branches are now obsolete.  Perhaps a reference to
>>the NMDA
>>document would be beneficial.
> 
> How about something like:
> 
>   The subsequent data nodes are obviated and obsoleted by the “Network
>   Management Architecture” as described in
> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.”

Works for me.

>>Another minor nit I noticed (and this is likely an issue with pyang) is
>>that
>>when using a grouping, the YANG tree lists nodes like routing-state ->
>>router-id with a '+' instead of a 'o' (i.e., indicating obsolete).  Not a
>>big
>>deal since the parent container is obsolete.
> 
> Good catch. Due to some subsetting and formatting, these were not
> regenerated. I
> will fix.

Cool.  I wasn't in a place to validate with pyang yesterday.  I had
assumed an issue there, but if it just takes a regen to fix, that would
be great and clearer.

>>
>>One comment I have is that the imports clauses here definitely point out
>>a need
>>to be able to import by some kind of version that will allow to set a
>>minimum
>>requirement (e.g., import by semantic version).  Having comments such as
>>are in
>>the modules now are not machine-consumable, and will likely cause
>>operational
>>challenges for those that do not pay attention.
> 
> We discussed this on the NETMOD list and it is also undesirable to hard
> code a
> version. It would be good to have “greater than or equal to” semantics.

Yes, I have seen and been part of the semver discussion.  This was more
to get keep beating the drum as this will pose an operational issue for
those not as familiar with NMDA.

Thanks, Acee.

Joe