[netmod] Re: RPC's last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-24

[[e-mail]]

Hi Jean,

(replying as the editor of the spec).

Thank you for the review. Please see inline.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Jean Mahoney <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : vendredi 2 mai 2025 01:40
> À : [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : RPC's last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-24
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Because the RFC Production Center carefully reviews YANG documents
> and validates YANG modules, we reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-
> rfc8407bis for impacts on our procedures.
> 
> We'll update our procedures to capture the following:
> 
>     o Checking for the new required normative references.
> 
>     o For IANA-maintained modules, asking authors to confirm that
>       the module complies with Section 4.30.3.1.
> 
>     o Ensuring that examples are set to <sourcecode
> markers="true">.
> 
>     o Checking that the Security Considerations section matches the
>       latest approved template unless the module complies with
> [RFC8791]
>       or defines a YANG extension.
> 
> 
> The following were added to rfc8407bis, but the RPC already does
> them:
> 
>     o Validate example modules.
> 
>     o Uses the command "pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-
> length 69"
> 
> 
> We will assume the authors have done the following before their
> document
> enters the RFC Editor queue:
> 
>     o Added a mention in the narrative section about
>       the classification of a given model.
> 
>     o Ensured that the IANA Considerations section complies with
>       Section 4.30.3.
> 
>     o Mentioned in the Introduction if the document contains major
>       NMDA exceptions or includes a temporary non-NMDA module.
> 
>     o Have used "yangson" or "yanglint" to check compliance of
>       JSON-encoded examples with target data models.
> 
>     o Have used reserved values in examples.
> 
>     o Have placed long tree diagrams are in an appendix
>       (i.e., the RPC won't move tree diagrams).
> 
> 
> Questions:
> 
> Should the RPC replace a module-specific URL with the registry URL?

[Med] I don't think a change is needed for the RPC. The module-specific URL is more for IANA when releasing a new revision of the module (per the guidance in Section 5.3).

> 
> Do we know when/if pyang will be updated?
> 

[Med] No. I guess this will be handled similar to other changes in the bis (e.g., https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/919) "TBD when 8407bis has been published."

> 
> Thanks and best regards,
> Jean
> 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.