Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01

Hi Lada, 

On 12/18/17, 7:19 AM, "Ladislav Lhotka" <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:

>Hi Acee,
>
>"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Lou, et al, 
>>
>> The only issue we are struggling with is whether we need to specify the
>> version in the ietf-interfaces import. We have noted that
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-01.txt does not import by revision.
>
>I would suggest to import *without* revision but add a description
>indicating that the NMDA-compatible revisions are needed.
>
>Importing by revision is clearly suboptimal. Hopefully a new mechanism
>such as semantic versioning will be introduced soon to alleviate this
>issue.

I agree and will update the description.
>
>>
>> We also have so nits:
>>
>>    1. Add an informative reference for
>> [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
>>    2. Based on a comment from Vladimir, we added the prefix for
>> ietf-routing.yang, “rt:”, to several references within
>>ietf-routing.yang.
>> Was this necessary? Of course, the model compiles with or without the
>> prefix.
>
>RFC6087bis has some rules in sec. 4.2, and these should be followed.

Will review these. 
>
>Also, the security considerations should IMO be changed, see my recent
>message:
>
>https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg19610.html
>
>Of course, the NEW formulation needn't be exactly as I suggested, but
>the text "The YANG module [...] is designed to be accessed ..." is
>apparently wrong and shouldn't be used any more.

Ok - I will also review the “Security Considerations” template.

Thanks,
Acee 

>
>Thanks, Lada
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Acee
>>
>> On 12/15/17, 3:55 PM, "netmod on behalf of Lou Berger"
>> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lberger@labn.net> wrote:
>>
>>>All,
>>>	This last call is closed.
>>>
>>>We note that there was an update during the LC and that no comments were
>>>received during the LC period.  As this is simply a mechanical update
>>>that has been discussed in the WG we plan to proceed with the
>>>publication process.
>>>
>>>Authors,
>>>	Please let/us the WG know when you have published a version ready for
>>>publication.  Also please let the WG know what has changed in the
>>>document since the start of LC (rev -01)
>>>
>>>Thank you,
>>>NetMod Chairs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 11/29/2017 12:26 PM, Lou Berger wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>> 
>>>> This starts a two-week working group last call on
>>>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01.
>>>> 
>>>> Please recall that this update's intention is to
>>>> modify the YANG module to be in line with the NMDA
>>>> guidelines [1].  Reviewing the diff between the two
>>>> drafts [2] should reveal just this.
>>>> 
>>>> The working group last call ends on December 13.
>>>> Please send your comments to the netmod mailing list.
>>>> 
>>>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document
>>>> and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!
>>>> This is useful and important, even from authors.
>>>> 
>>>> [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dsdt-nmda-guidelines-01
>>>> [2] 
>>>>https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url1=rfc8022.txt&url2=
>>>>dr
>>>>aft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01.txt
>>>> 
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> Netmod Chairs
>>>> 
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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
>
>-- 
>Ladislav Lhotka
>Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67