Re: [netmod] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 21 October 2019 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 85BBD12011A; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 00:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 HFsvJdlkEqiI; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 00:38:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C27D2120115; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 00:38:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 341F31AE018A; Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:38:25 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 09:37:56 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20191021.093756.152320320751835478.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com, noreply@ietf.org
Cc: gen-art@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext.all@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <157152508672.5327.14252287111930747824@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <157152508672.5327.14252287111930747824@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/lJpQba7PM1ef6KAuJKp78QNcEMs>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 21 Oct 2019 07:38:28 -0000

Hi,

Brian Carpenter via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>; wrote:
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> Gen-ART Last Call & telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please wait for direction from your
> document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-04.txt
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review Date: 2019-10-20
> IETF LC End Date: TBD
> IESG Telechat date: 2019-10-31
> 
> Summary: Ready with nits
> --------
> 
> Comments: 
> ---------
> 
> This was accidentally put on the IESG agenda without an IETF Last Call,
> so this review serves both purposes.
> 
> The draft seems very clear and I have no technical comments.
> 
> Nits:
> -----
> 
> > Updates: 8340 (if approved)
> > Intended status: Standards Track
> 
> RFC 8340 is a BCP, so can this really be Standards Track?
> Shouldn't it also be BCP, extending BCP 215? It's tricky,
> because it also effectively extends RFC 8040, which is
> Standards Track rather than BCP. Sadly it doesn't seem that
> a document can be both BCP and Standards Track.

Hmm, the main contribution in this document (the "structure"
extension), is not suitable as a BCP.  It is really just section 3
that updates 8340.  I don't know to to resolve this, and will look at
the document shepard for guidance!

> Also, this draft says:
> 
> >   The "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040] has been copied here,
> >   renamed to "structure", and updated to be more flexible.
> 
> That reads as if RFC 8040 is also updated, and it leaves the
> status of "yang-data" unclear. Is it now deprecated? Perhaps the
> sentence would be clearer like this:
> 
>   This document defines a new YANG extension statement called
>   "structure", which is similar to but more flexible than the
>   "yang-data" extension from [RFC8040].


Thank you, this is better!


/martin