IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07

"Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> Sat, 06 January 2018 23:27 UTC

Return-Path: <acee@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 9FE04126E01; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:27:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.531 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 OnY8GJnoSk5g; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com [173.37.86.78]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88636126C3D; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:27:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2952; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1515281247; x=1516490847; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=6UT6JAyGdkKytPWoWiZkqbVRMODVi8CbKLHaULfU+VU=; b=gKu+V9dmmH45WM4/SuFv5nIaqX5Rk64TdKy72rKfMKwq7+svH+OVxxlY sjvl5vZ78BY9UNvrFviaCEgIMDOAOgvLI1j1FuX2vNIw7arKMc5Oun6np zf2nO1RM8j+iNlGe3tCRNPolxSiVSq/7rh2Qe4HAvBECqEt/YDAYuEAgc s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0B3AgANW1Fa/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYM/gVonB4QAmHyZLIIVCoU7AhqEGEAXAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFJAYjBA1FEAIBCBIIAiYCAgIwFQIOAgQBDQWKMa9DgW06ii8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR6BD4MRghWDP4MugzCBboMXgmUBBId3m2cCj2mFU5QJlmoCERkBgTsBIAE3gVBvFT2CKoRXeIhdgRcBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,323,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="338180664"
Received: from alln-core-8.cisco.com ([173.36.13.141]) by rcdn-iport-7.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2018 23:27:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w06NRQWS023760 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 6 Jan 2018 23:27:26 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:27:25 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com ([64.101.220.155]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:27:25 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com>, "ops-dir@ietf.org" <ops-dir@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis.all@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHThy08rP1/r175G0SqJDaeknQSXKNnfV+A
Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 23:27:24 +0000
Message-ID: <D676C20D.E8A40%acee@cisco.com>
References: <151527064556.32311.7928092264244016989@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <151527064556.32311.7928092264244016989@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.116.152.198]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <3232414B27CE34488A24416178D5B92D@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/o19OQ5Y92CmjP4VvbNmAAYlO03I>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07
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: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 23:27:29 -0000

Hey Joe, 

Thanks for the review. See replies inline.

On 1/6/18, 3:30 PM, "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:

>Reviewer: Joe Clarke
>Review result: Ready
>
>I am completing this review as a representative of the ops directorate.
>This
>document describes an NMDA-compliant version of the ietf-routing family
>of YANG
>modules that obsoletes the revisions in RFC8022.  Overall, I feel this
>document
>is ready, with some very minor spelling nits.
>
>The only substantive comment I have is in the comments ahead of the
>now-obsolete state branches.  Currently, these comments just state
>"Obsolete
>State Data".  I wonder if it would make sense to add a bit more text here
>to
>reference why these branches are now obsolete.  Perhaps a reference to
>the NMDA
>document would be beneficial.

How about something like:

  The subsequent data nodes are obviated and obsoleted by the “Network
  Management Architecture” as described in
draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.”

>
>Spelling-wise, search for Managment.  There are four instances in the YANG
>modules themselves.  Obviously, these should be "Management".

Sigh - thanks, I’ve fixed.
>
>Another minor nit I noticed (and this is likely an issue with pyang) is
>that
>when using a grouping, the YANG tree lists nodes like routing-state ->
>router-id with a '+' instead of a 'o' (i.e., indicating obsolete).  Not a
>big
>deal since the parent container is obsolete.

Good catch. Due to some subsetting and formatting, these were not
regenerated. I
will fix. 
>
>One comment I have is that the imports clauses here definitely point out
>a need
>to be able to import by some kind of version that will allow to set a
>minimum
>requirement (e.g., import by semantic version).  Having comments such as
>are in
>the modules now are not machine-consumable, and will likely cause
>operational
>challenges for those that do not pay attention.

We discussed this on the NETMOD list and it is also undesirable to hard
code a 
version. It would be good to have “greater than or equal to” semantics.


Thanks,
Acee 

>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email