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

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

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FE04126E01; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:27:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.531
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OnY8GJnoSk5g; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:27:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88636126C3D; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 15:27:27 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; 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: =?us-ascii?q?A0B3AgANW1Fa/40NJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYM/gVonB4QAmHyZLIIVCoU7AhqEGEAXAQEBAQEBAQEBayiFJAY?= =?us-ascii?q?jBA1FEAIBCBIIAiYCAgIwFQIOAgQBDQWKMa9DgW06ii8BAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQEBAR6BD4MRghWDP4MugzCBboMXgmUBBId3m2cCj2mFU5QJlmoCERkBgTs?= =?us-ascii?q?BIAE3gVBvFT2CKoRXeIhdgRcBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.46,323,1511827200"; d="scan'208";a="338180664"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Jan 2018 23:27:26 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (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 ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:27:25 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Sat, 6 Jan 2018 18:27:25 -0500
From: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07
Thread-Index: AQHThy08rP1/r175G0SqJDaeknQSXKNnfV+A
Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2018 23:27:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Opsdir telechat review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-07
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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)" <> wrote:

>Reviewer: Joe Clarke
>Review result: Ready
>I am completing this review as a representative of the ops directorate.
>document describes an NMDA-compliant version of the ietf-routing family
>of YANG
>modules that obsoletes the revisions in RFC8022.  Overall, I feel this
>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
>State Data".  I wonder if it would make sense to add a bit more text here
>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

>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
>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
>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
>requirement (e.g., import by semantic version).  Having comments such as
>are in
>the modules now are not machine-consumable, and will likely cause
>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.