Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16 Part 1

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Thu, 25 January 2018 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 C9E9C1242F7 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:45:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 oJcsN9fcBagH for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E02E1201F2 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108158.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w0PCj9cA020935; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:45:15 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=+VDMrCsME+ib3tGbIA7rMJZVBKPlM0Zbi3fyIibZXXY=; b=EpW9nXk/e4nWFaurNNA81yS/+JqgIppEpV2P0T+a563J5JIZkxXFNymJ2LOwratonowN oD1XgEWpvrdqnwCgLcOmT3JFwwG8YHHoSZeAbEutHUg9m9zAXKLZAJyFpwWKlX/FyYw9 ortzDHWjEdavn7FMboLF14v/T2lZZk/OqzgPXEAeNOIGgTQ0JnA4Fzrvt2J04NS4Xw4Q EBnCKar/bRxFkWXt5sziYODgHZbKl8GOAoP341f215EP8SP6VeADsx+aFwkH6CE283hf vp0VXyaWRlZuclYWPx6GjkklcpBHXHMfWjeKsxkXkSDC1j+MAlxUJPCItRkEJnvtbe85 3w==
Received: from nam02-cy1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02lp0047.outbound.protection.outlook.com [207.46.163.47]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2fqfh1000p-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 25 Jan 2018 04:45:14 -0800
Received: from DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.240.147) by DM5PR05MB3371.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.174.191.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.464.6; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:45:13 +0000
Received: from DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.240.147]) by DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.174.240.147]) with mapi id 15.20.0464.006; Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:45:13 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16 Part 1
Thread-Index: AQHTlc5/jPHFjNSqUUC1y3CP53NHm6OENUCA
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:45:12 +0000
Message-ID: <6BAC6B11-90A9-4CA1-AE53-FFAC084FB76E@juniper.net>
References: <e1f4f27a-d982-b248-f0e1-7093dc2f63e8@cisco.com> <6f96ec70-1532-5d99-97d1-5d5531e7865e@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <6f96ec70-1532-5d99-97d1-5d5531e7865e@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.10]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; DM5PR05MB3371; 7:Yk0m5HV0SV0OUKgYz3kKofpx4j6C3YExksy6bc32pwAAPWW9OWsOnoJrLBfUytvFSRud5bGsPrlK1qcxIGXZkLH86ek2aT8YEkgLEF4RN0R7mJR1JXzok1bZAkX3wS8+lD0unkmnRMl6+o6Eo0y03bSme9mKGQX9TfB+J8MyDBG/uOiKOHwDI0nZCvZcuteR0cGrAoU+BL4eQKvPUeJgRWDqlLP8XlLOBFf5aHo6MGn1q2aKg9ViERxzk2E0zFDj
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 8df33f19-d79b-4cbd-f479-08d563f17a28
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(48565401081)(5600026)(4604075)(3008032)(2017052603307)(7153060)(49563074)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR05MB3371;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR05MB3371:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR05MB33712F5DF2D6C5BB34384CEFA5E10@DM5PR05MB3371.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(28532068793085)(158342451672863)(10436049006162)(120809045254105)(166708455590820)(95692535739014)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(102415395)(6040501)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231023)(2400081)(944501161)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(6041288)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(20161123562045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:DM5PR05MB3371; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:DM5PR05MB3371;
x-forefront-prvs: 0563F2E8B7
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(39380400002)(376002)(15374003)(377424004)(189003)(199004)(2906002)(83716003)(99286004)(186003)(478600001)(230783001)(83506002)(966005)(25786009)(316002)(105586002)(6246003)(33656002)(7736002)(66066001)(106356001)(58126008)(110136005)(86362001)(82746002)(36756003)(236005)(6512007)(54556002)(76176011)(54896002)(6306002)(2950100002)(53936002)(3846002)(6486002)(6116002)(6436002)(8676002)(5660300001)(26005)(77096007)(3660700001)(733005)(59450400001)(81156014)(81166006)(3280700002)(102836004)(345774005)(6506007)(99936001)(53546011)(606006)(68736007)(14454004)(2900100001)(8936002)(97736004)(561944003)(229853002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR05MB3371; H:DM5PR05MB3484.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 7cPE3n8cjEH03zrw/6+wV/DCbtYkX8wc5RerBm4qc624FvY6EKmQOFoL5xIuf307xlx2xW/H+T7lKcgOyi5M5w==
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="_004_6BAC6B1190A94CA1AE53FFAC084FB76Ejunipernet_"; type="multipart/alternative"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 8df33f19-d79b-4cbd-f479-08d563f17a28
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 25 Jan 2018 12:45:13.0253 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR05MB3371
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-01-25_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1801250173
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/j7l7TaNrNgjrdhRMG-jwDpjiJMQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16 Part 1
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: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:45:22 -0000

I see a lot of suggestions to reference other drafts as examples.  I would discourage doing that.  I recommend this draft clearly stating the desire, including its own examples if needed.

Regarding referencing the tree-diagrams draft, I don't agree that having a "Tree Diagrams" section in the Introduction is better than an inline reference where used:
1) the term "tree diagram" is not anywhere defined
2) sections having tree diagrams have to reference the section in the Introduction, and why reference the Intro section when it's just as easy to reference the draft?
3) it makes the Introduction and Table of Contents unnecessarily busy

Kent // contributor

On 1/25/18, 6:20 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise" <netmod-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of bclaise@cisco.com<mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:

Dear all,

Thank you for this important document.
I've been spending quite some time trying to relay feedback seen on multiple fronts.
This is part 1 of the review, till section 4.21


-

   This document defines a set of usage guidelines for Standards Track

   documents containing [RFC7950<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=t8fshSpe0Dhh5uTE8sRNgSXoLTkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>] data models.



This is not inline with:

   This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.

   These modules SHOULD be written using the YANG 1.1 [RFC7950<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=t8fshSpe0Dhh5uTE8sRNgSXoLTkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>] syntax.

   YANG 1.0 [RFC6020<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc6020&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=L8LZohUWZQHgCc69tSH78w3mmeBF7ZpEaYGfDPYf5-8&e=>] syntax MAY be used if no YANG 1.1 constructs or

   semantics are needed in the module.



So it should be changed to

   This document defines a set of usage guidelines for Standards Track

   documents containing YANG 1.1 [RFC7950<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=t8fshSpe0Dhh5uTE8sRNgSXoLTkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>] and YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] data models.



Similarly in section 4

OLD:



   Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST comply with all

   syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG [RFC7950<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=t8fshSpe0Dhh5uTE8sRNgSXoLTkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>]TkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>].



NEW:

   Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST comply with all

   syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG 1.1 [RFC7950<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=t8fshSpe0Dhh5uTE8sRNgSXoLTkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>]TkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>]. See the exception

   for YANG 1.0 in section 3.6



Note that I tried to add some new text around the following sentence but that paragraph became clumsy.

   Alternatively,

   if YANG 1.0 is used, then Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications

   MUST comply with all syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG 1.0 [RFC6020].



Finally, in section 3.6, I would add a sentence to this paragraph

   This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.

   These modules SHOULD be written using the YANG 1.1 [RFC7950<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=t8fshSpe0Dhh5uTE8sRNgSXoLTkY-4-nlePaYc1My0A&e=>] syntax.

   YANG 1.0 [RFC6020<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc6020&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=L8LZohUWZQHgCc69tSH78w3mmeBF7ZpEaYGfDPYf5-8&e=>] syntax MAY be used if no YANG 1.1 constructs or

   semantics are needed in the module.



The sentence such as:

   if any the imported YANG modules is based on YANG 1.1, the main YANG

   module MUST also be written in YANG 1.1.



 - section 3, editorial:

   There are three usage scenarios for YANG that can appear in an

   Internet-Draft or RFC:



   o  normative module or submodule



   o  example module or submodule



   o  example YANG fragment not part of any module or submodule



   The guidelines in this document refer mainly to a normative complete

   module or submodule, but may be applicable to example modules and

   YANG fragments as well.



Either add "complete" to "o  normative module or submodule)" and be consistent throughout the document,

or remove it from the last sentence.





- section 3.2



   The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string identifying

   the file name specified in Section 5.2 of [RFC7950]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7950-23section-2D5.2&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=oQY6lhhjRuOEYy_Nf-7HG6_-eMgwX7xZg4VKNHjnTMc&e=>eMgwX7xZg4VKNHjnTMc&e=>.  The name string

   form that includes the revision-date SHOULD be used.  The following

   example is for the '2010-01-18' revision of the 'ietf-foo' module:



   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang"<mailto:ietf-foo@2016-03-20.yang>



I would add that both revision versions (on the <CODE BEGINS> and in the module) MUST match.

I ran into all sort of tooling issues because of such discrepancies.



- section 3.2.1

Add "see section 4.9 regarding the namespace guidelines for example modules"



- The following in paragraph in section 3.3 seems misplaced.

   If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a normative reference to the

   YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be provided for each diagram.

   (Refer to the example in the next section.)
It should be in section 3.4.
Btw, no need to have the specifications for each diagram!
Also, we want to add some guidelines on how to reference the tree diagram convention
For ex: no need to copy over the conventions
Basically, we just need: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03#section-1.3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc7223bis-2D03-23section-2D1.3&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=QlnrbnGZEo-zQYzG9AWk86a_m22IcpBnGQkewEWHaxQ&e=>

PROPOSAL (replacing the previous paragraph)

   If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a normative reference to the

   YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be provided. As an example guideline

   (from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03#section-1.3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc7223bis-2D03-23section-2D1.3&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=QlnrbnGZEo-zQYzG9AWk86a_m22IcpBnGQkewEWHaxQ&e=>)22IcpBnGQkewEWHaxQ&e=>),

   here is a subsection in the terminology section



   Tree Diagrams



   Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in

   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc7223bis-2D03-23ref-2DI-2DD.ietf-2Dnetmod-2Dyang-2Dtree-2Ddiagrams&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=JIdabP77Rz-kArFF6DG3MG5X24_APuPzoGifHNEdpmY&e=>]4_APuPzoGifHNEdpmY&e=>].
- section 3.5
You should add a good example to illustrate the second paragraph (Based on some previous feedback, YANG module designer wants to work from examples)
I would suggest to add https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09#section-2.3<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc8022bis-2D09-23section-2D2.3&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=xuiAQ4ZwzGoAwnyFmJc9HzIdN7xsqTzXQ46FBLTqe8M&e=>


- section 3.6, editorial
OLD:

  Note that all YANG statements within a YANG module are considered

   normative, if the module itself is considered normative, and not an

   example module.

NEW:



  Note that all YANG statements within a YANG module are considered

   normative, if the module itself is considered normative, and not an

   example module or a example YANG fragment.


- section 3.6

   Example YANG modules MUST NOT contain any normative text, including

   any reserved words from [RFC2119<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc2119&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=n_u6oaVdTWs-y5ne5fi2pdgK-UigUUngP7d8uhsorxM&e=>]UigUUngP7d8uhsorxM&e=>].



I guess it applies also to the "example YANG fragments"



- section 3.10

Mention yanglint.

yanglint validates xpath, while pyang doesn't.



- section 3.11

You might consider the addition of xym https://github.com/xym-tool/xym<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_xym-2Dtool_xym&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=eULAfGo_CBVjbFXGx49HR73USrKXjCrL-XaAWKdXlKc&e=>



- section 3.12

mention that the examples MUST be validated.

Pointing to the tool would be a welcome addition.



- section 4.6.x

You should really mention a common mistake about the missing derived-from-or-self(), flagged in many YANG doctor reviews::

[cid:image001.png@01D395B0.6F1CFDB0]

You should explain the applicability: identity augmentation.



- section 4.7 "Lifecycle Management"

    The status statement MUST be present if its value is 'deprecated' or

   'obsolete'.



I've been confused for a little, thinking this section was about the IETF document lifecyle management and the obsolete document tag.

Proposal: "Objects Lifecycle Management" or "YANG Objects Lifecycle Management"

    The YANG objects status statement MUST be present if its value is 'deprecated' or

   'obsolete'.





- section 4.8

   The contact statement MUST be present.  If the module is contained in

   a document intended for Standards Track status, then the working

   group web and mailing information MUST be present, and the main

   document author or editor contact information SHOULD be present.  If

   additional authors or editors exist, their contact information MAY be

   present.





I would add: No need to include the WG chair contacts.



- section 4.10

   The separation of configuration data and operational state SHOULD be

   considered carefully.  It is sometimes useful to define separate top-

   level containers for configuration and non-configuration data.  For

   some existing top-level data nodes, configuration data was not in

   scope, so only one container representing operational state was

   created.

What about NMDA?

This section is not inline with 4.23.3

Btw, in case a YANG supports NMDA , RFC6087bis should include the guideline is that it must be clearly mentioned.

The example of the abstract in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc7223bis-2D03&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=RpSEervHdcDQlS0Ak-5TVbf3I_oR5bXvhGR68djvPSo&e=> could be mentioned.

   The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management

   Datastore Architecture defined in I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.





In the same section about "top-level data definitions", any guidelines in connection with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Drtgwg-2Dlne-2Dmodel_&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=uuC62eM2sOBVQxxVTyk2UcxAnOiTqydTayi7j764e8w&e=> and schema mount?

Too early?



In section 4.23, add the [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc6087bis-2D16-23ref-2DI-2DD.ietf-2Dnetmod-2Drevised-2Ddatastores&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=szYbRXpXn09E4JmhGLL-8-Te-n7tcA5DSlhzSq6qSUc&e=>] reference next to NMDA

In section 4.23.3

OLD:

(b) For published models, the model should be republished with an

   NMDA-compatible structure, deprecating non-NMDA constructs.  For

   example, the "ietf-interfaces" model in [RFC7223<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7223&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=HrAf_Vwxp2ZT1FBY2GcbPFPLLrob4Dtap2N0IpG7WEI&e=>] will be

   restructured as an NMDA-compatible model.



NEW:

(b) For published models, the model should be republished with an

   NMDA-compatible structure, deprecating non-NMDA constructs.  For

   example, the "ietf-interfaces" model in [RFC7223<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc7223&d=DwMDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=LtO2RQQIegWlN4MIzNkbubIXiwPDj_Uk_qYxqyLA_mc&s=HrAf_Vwxp2ZT1FBY2GcbPFPLLrob4Dtap2N0IpG7WEI&e=>] has been

   restructured as an NMDA-compatible model in [RFC7223bis].



I believe [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] should a normative reference



- section 4.14.2



Something wrong with:

   -top-level siblings are not ordered -top-level siblings not are not

   static, and depends on the modules that are loaded



- section 4.17

Discussing with YANG doctors that a feature-per-leaf is most likely the wrong approach, Jürgen came up with this.



OLD



   The YANG "feature" statement is used to define a label for a set of

   optional functionality within a module.  The "if-feature" statement

   is used in the YANG statements associated with a feature.



   The set of YANG features available in a module should be considered

   carefully.  The description-stmt within a feature-stmt MUST specify

   any interactions with other features.



   If there is a large set of objects...



NEW



   The YANG "feature" statement is used to define a label for a set of

   optional functionality within a module.  The "if-feature" statement

   is used in the YANG statements associated with a feature.  The

   description-stmt within a feature-stmt MUST specify any

   interactions with other features.



   The set of YANG features defined in a module should be considered

   carefully. Very fine granular features increase interoperability

   complexity and should be avoided. A likely misuse of the feature

   mechanism is the tagging of individual leafs (e.g., counters) with

   separate features.



   If there is a large set of objects...



back to section 4.5

   If a data definition is optional, depending on server support for a

   NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol capability, then a YANG 'feature'

   statement SHOULD be defined to indicate that the NETCONF or RESTCONF

   capability is supported within the data model.



NEW:

    If a data definition is optional which depends on server support then

    a YANG 'feature' statement SHOULD be defined.  The defined 'feature'

    SHOULD then be used in the conditional 'if-feature' statement

    referencing the optional data definition.



This is currently under discussion with the YANG doctors.



Regards, Benoit