Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis Part 2

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 21 February 2018 12:41 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 759E2124217 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:41:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, 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 SwOQNDG4CjvT for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:41:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FE8D1200FC for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 04:41:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=11836; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1519216899; x=1520426499; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=9f4wxh4/JaSQgnHxmaAgF5uzGty3M5o66UfyC8WeMe4=; b=iRlegzPVvEITZOUKO/PQZaS+NnCwFrndCRp3isD8GxRXCcscvwTRUDRB xIzmSHiOZDkfET5xDqH527IHhJrNEBVCw6f8w48NZIvlY4XZaGNeMfvVY +YNjKqn+TesZtYD+p+0hJiYq/iIp+9tSqErZWPZ2vzADSdGGYfe1jN23o Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CVAQAoaI1a/5RdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYNPZnAog2iKJY12gVALJ4EXkG6FXBSCAgoYAQqEQk8CgnZUGAE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQEBAQEBAmsohSQBAQQBASFLBAcQCxgnAwICJx8RBg0GAgEBih8QqhaCJyaEW?= =?us-ascii?q?oN9ghMBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEdhQ6CJ4FXgWcpDIJ5gzABAQIBgTY?= =?us-ascii?q?FARIBCYMtgmUFklaBFJBRCYgnhAiJXoIgZ4VCg3Emh2WOCYIBiByBPB85JTtxM?= =?us-ascii?q?xoIGxUZIYJDCYISgnkjNwEBikiCPgEBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.46,543,1511827200"; d="scan'208,217"; a="73797887"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Feb 2018 12:41:38 +0000
Received: from [10.82.217.145] (rtp-vpn3-399.cisco.com [10.82.217.145]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w1LCe2us021277; Wed, 21 Feb 2018 12:41:26 GMT
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <f0ab1c65-dcc0-9460-e8b4-7b4ef5ff0874@cisco.com> <CABCOCHQaMfC-2XyKY_LOYgF9Z4UAxzkkDiV5--BbuuqRaG_7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <4b24af79-6fe5-8e4a-2921-b5505a976bbd@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2018 07:39:43 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQaMfC-2XyKY_LOYgF9Z4UAxzkkDiV5--BbuuqRaG_7eQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------CFCFB7436EEB27DDD7DFE2E8"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/jn6NU-1ZZmmBiSg5Y5scymOcTV8>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis Part 2
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, 21 Feb 2018 12:41:41 -0000

Thank you Andy.
Sending to IETF LC now.

Regards, Benoit
> Hi,
>
> I think draft-18 addresses all these issues.
> A guideline about key leaf order has also been added.
>
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 7:11 AM, Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com 
> <mailto:bclaise@cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>     Dear all,
>
>     Here is the part 2 of the AD review, from section 4.21 on.
>
>     Regarding the part 1, thanks Andy for addressing all comments in version 17.
>
>     - section 4.22 "Data Correlation.
>
>     Not sure what you mean by the section title and "Data can be correlated in various ways"?
>     Which data? YANG modules, YANG objects, object instances, from different YANG server, etc.
>     I guess I miss a sentence or two regarding this "correlation" objective and which guidelines this section
>     is going to provide to "authors and reviewers of Standards Track specifications containing YANG data model modules".
>     Note: I read that section multiple times.
>
>     - section 4.22
>         It is sometimes useful to separate configuration data and operational
>         state, so that they do not not even share the exact same naming
>         characteristics.  The correlation between configuration the
>         operational state that is affected by changes in configuration is a
>         complex problem.  There may not be a simple 1:1 relationship between
>         a configuration data node and an operational state node.  Further
>         work is needed in YANG to clarify this relationship.  Protocol work
>         may also be needed to allow a client to retrieve this type of
>         information from a server.  At this time the best practice is to
>         clearly document any relationship to other data structures in the
>         "description" statement.
>
>     Isn't it clarified with NMDA. It's not inline with 4.23.2, which says:
>     	
>         Designers SHOULD describe and justify any NMDA exceptions in detail,
>         such as the use of separate subtrees and/or separate leafs.
>
>     ... and I guess confusing in light of the real guidelines in 4.23.3
>     Btw, why is this paragraph in 4.22 and not in 4.23?
>
>     - section 4.23
>
>     	Operational state is now modeled using YANG according to new NMDA,
>
>     Please add a reference to the draft.
>
>     - section 4.26 "YANG 1.1 Guidelines"
>     I'm confused by the title. The entire document is about 1.1, right?
>     I guess you want to express something such as "YANG 1.1 specific Constructs Guidelines"
>
>     - section 4.26.1
>
>           Multiple revisions of the same module can be imported, provided that
>           different prefixes are used.
>
>     Readinghttps://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.1.5
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.1.5>. Any contradiction?
>     Then reading:
>         This MAY be done if the authors can
>         demonstrate that the "avoided" definitions from the most recent of
>         the multiple revisions are somehow broken or harmful to
>         interoperability.
>
>     "avoided" definitions?
>     I simply don't understand this sentence.
>
>     - section 4.26.4
>         The NETCONF Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC6536 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6536>] does not support
>         parameter access control for RPC operations.
>
>     Let's use draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis
>
>
>     - Appendix B
>
>         YANG Module Registry: Register the YANG module name, prefix,
>               namespace, and RFC number, according to the rules specified
>               in [RFC7950 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>].
>
>     I guess this is [RFC6020] in this case. Indeed the "YANG Module Names" registry is specified in RFC6020/.
>     See for examplehttps://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03#section-6
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03#section-6>
>
>     - Appendix B
>     References -- verify that the references are properly divided
>            between normative and informative references, thatRFC 2119 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>  is
>            included as a normative reference if the terminology defined
>            therein is used in the document
>
>     Refer to RFC8174
>
>     - Appendix B (and maybe some more text somewhere else.
>     To refer to Tom Petch latest email to NETMOD, we should need a few words about:
>        If a YANG module has a Reference or Description clause specifying an
>        I-D, and the I-D is listed as an Informative Reference.
>
>     Regards, Benoit
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     netmod mailing list
>     netmod@ietf.org <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>
>
>