Re: [netmod] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-19: (with COMMENT)

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Murray,

On 10/4/2021 8:25 PM, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-19: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The shepherd writeup is incomplete with respect to the first question.
>
> All of the SHOULDs in Section 2 leave me wondering under what conditions one
> might legitimately deviate from what they are saying.  Since SHOULD offers a
> choice, I recommend making this more clear.
The draft mentions some SHOULD related to the file name.
     Ex: The name of the instance data file SHOULD be of the form:
For those SHOULD, we followed the RFC 7950, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-5.2, which also 
used SHOULD

For this instance ...
To properly understand and use an instance data set, the user needs to 
know the content-schema. One of the following methods SHOULD be used:
... I don't recall why we have a SHOULD here. History I guess.
A MUST seems more appropriate and we propose to change to a MUST.

Regards, Benoit