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
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
- [netmod] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-net… Brian Carpenter via Datatracker
- Re: [netmod] Genart telechat review of draft-ietf… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Genart telechat review of … Alissa Cooper