[netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-mgmt

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors,

Here is my AD review.

-
exactly like indraft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg  <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg/>, which contains a summary table with MIB variable table, this document should contain a similar mapping table
For example
       +--rw system
       |  +--rw contact?          string
       |  +--rw hostname?         inet:domain-name
       |  +--rw location?         string
       +--ro system-state
          +--ro platform
             +--ro os-name?       string
             +--ro os-release?    string
             +--ro os-version?    string
             +--ro machine?       string

This maps to the system group MIB variables. Some leavs definitions already refer to some MIB variables: sysContact, sysLocation, etc.
I understand the MIB variables don't map 1:1, but telling that
             os-name        part of the sysDescr MIB variable
             os-release     part of the sysDescr MIB variable
             os-version     part of the sysDescr MIB variable
             machine?       part of the sysDescr MIB variable
... is also useful info.

Considering that NETCONF is now also used for monitoring, and that people were used to SNMP, such mapping tables would be a good practice in all NETMOD documents to help SNMP people/NMS make the transition.
There might be some read-only MIB variables in the following RFCs:
RFC 4668 RADIUS Authentication Client MIB
RFC 4669 RADIUS Authentication Server MIB
RFC 5907 Definitions of Managed Objects for Network Time Protocol Version 4 (NTPv4)
...

So it needs a little bit of research, but shouldn't be too hard.


-
   leaf location {
          type string;
          description
            "The system location. The server MAY restrict the size
             and characters in order to maintain compatibility with
             the sysLocation MIB object.";
          reference
            "RFC 3418  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3418>: Management Information Base (MIB) for the
                       Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
                       SNMPv2-MIB.sysLocation";
        }

Question: do we want to be aligned with the leaf name logic inhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-interfaces-cfg/  ?

leaf name {
    ...
    In most cases, the "name" of an "interface" entry is mapped to
    ifName. ifName is defined as a DisplayString [RFC2579] which uses a
    7-bit ASCII character set.  An implementation that performs this
    mapping MUST restrict the allowed values for "name" to match the
    restrictions of ifName.

So basically
NEW:
   leaf location {
          type string;
          description
            "The system location. In most cases, the "location" of an "interface" entry
            is mapped to sysLocation. sysLocation is defined as a DisplayString [RFC2579]
            which uses a 7-bit ASCII character set. An implementation that performs this
            mapping MUST restrict the allowed values for "location" to match the
            restrictions of sysLocation.";
          reference
            "RFC 3418  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3418>: Management Information Base (MIB) for the
                       Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
                       SNMPv2-MIB.sysLocation";
        }


-
+--rw system
       |  +--rw clock
       |  |  +--rw (timezone)?
       |  |     +--:(timezone-location)
       |  |     |  +--rw timezone-location?     ianatz:iana-timezone
       |  |     +--:(timezone-utc-offset)
       |  |        +--rw timezone-utc-offset?   int16
       |  +--rw ntp!
       |     +--rw enabled?   boolean

  leaf enabled {
            type boolean;
            default true;
            description
              "Indicates that the system should attempt
               to synchronize the system clock with an
               NTP server from the 'ntp/server' list.";
          }


How come that enabled is marked as optional while there is a default value?
Aren't they slightly conflicting statements?
Disclaimer: no strong feeling about that one.
  
-
Do we need the NTP version, 3 or 4, as a config field?

Regards, Benoit (OPS AD)