Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Thu, 07 March 2019 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 A7B84129B88; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 11:02:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 fY80fgZRlQu5; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 11:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB14128B01; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 11:02:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tops.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C58360510; Thu, 7 Mar 2019 14:02:40 -0500 (EST)
References: <155183201188.27630.13798246400958114485@ietfa.amsl.com> <0BE3CBAC-40EF-4162-82D0-04C638A3B429@chopps.org> <CABCOCHR-AROb3D1tyEgkNiP0keab_Q-K4T+iSPNwD8eg3ASG4A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEe_xxiZS8cTVN=FuULJ_2ppdYrjoiHTJPYu0an4Z-oJY7hQsQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABCOCHRxebOhNOEXe5nAmLdEAK-e3xeeqM1T9C1sDfkXABmugA@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: mu4e 1.1.0; emacs 26.1
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: William Lupton <wlupton@broadband-forum.org>, Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.all@ietf.org, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>, IETF discussion list <ietf@ietf.org>, NetMod WG <netmod@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CABCOCHRxebOhNOEXe5nAmLdEAK-e3xeeqM1T9C1sDfkXABmugA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 14:02:39 -0500
Message-ID: <sa6ftryv774.fsf@chopps.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/pSXgzILNsQ8uOZC_-DFdr98Bxvw>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 07 Mar 2019 19:02:44 -0000

We already have a reviewed and approved prefixes registry.

Given nothing is broken here, and the current solution has been reviewed for 2+ years, and with careful consideration approved by the working group, this does not seem like change that should be considered (or perhaps even suggested) at this very late point in the process.

Thanks,
Chris.

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>; writes:

> On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:37 AM William Lupton <wlupton@broadband-forum.org>;
> wrote:
>
>> This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details)
>> but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that
>> registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes.
>> https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
>>
>
>
> looks like a great solution and would be less duplication of registries
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 18:28, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>; wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>; wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
>>>>
>>>> > On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <
>>>> ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>; wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
>>>> > Review result: Almost Ready
>>>> >
>>>> ....
>>>> > If I read correctly, the YANG definition in s4.2 REQUIRES that all
>>>> tags have a
>>>> > prefix.  For clarity, it would better if this read:
>>>> >    All tags MUST begin with a prefix; it is intended that this prefix
>>>> SHOULD
>>>> >   [or maybe 'should'] indicate
>>>> >  the ownership or origination of the definition.
>>>>
>>>> The intent was to not put the MUST on users. As the final arbiters of
>>>> tags, users should be free to do whatever they want and not have
>>>> implementations or standards superfluously block them from doing so. How
>>>> about we carry the SHOULD into the typedef in the YANG model as well? That
>>>> seems reasonable to me, i.e.,
>>>>
>>>>   typedef tag {
>>>>     type string {
>>>>       length "1..max";
>>>>       pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\-_]*:[\S ]+';
>>>>     }
>>>>     description
>>>>       "A tag is a type 'string' value that does not include carriage
>>>>        return, newline or tab characters. It SHOULD begin with a
>>>>        standard prefix.";
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.
>>> I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.
>>> (Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the prefix
>>> "vendor:"
>>> seems a bit short-sighted)
>>>
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>> > S2, para 1: s/yang type/YANG type/ (I think)
>>>> >
>>>> > S2.2: s/follwing/following/
>>>> >
>>>> > S3.1, para 2:
>>>> > OLD:
>>>> > If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also
>>>> be Section
>>>> > 2.1. Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new standard tags to
>>>> the IANA
>>>> > registry, and the IANA registry can serve as a check against
>>>> duplication.
>>>> >
>>>> > NEW:
>>>> > If the module is defined in an IETF standards track document, the tags
>>>> MUST use
>>>> > the prefix defined in Section 2.1. Thus, definitions of new modules
>>>> can drive
>>>> > the addition of new standard tags to the IANA registry defined in
>>>> Section 7.2,
>>>> > and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.
>>>> >
>>>> > ENDS
>>>> >
>>>> > S3.2: s/standard/IETF Standard/
>>>> >
>>>> > S3.3: It would be useful to introduce the term 'masking' used later in
>>>> the YANG
>>>> > module definition.
>>>>
>>>> How about:
>>>>
>>>> "Tags of any kind can be assigned and removed by the user using normal
>>>> configuration mechanisms. In order to remove a tag from the
>>>> operational datastore the user adds a matching =masked-tag= entry for
>>>> a given module."
>>>>
>>>> > S4.1: I think this usage of RFC 8340 makes it normative.
>>>>
>>>> Covered earlier (BCP).
>>>>
>>>> > S4.2, extension module-tag definition: This should contain a pointer
>>>> to RFC
>>>> > 8342 which discusses the system origin concept.
>>>>
>>>> Added.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Chris.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Major issues:
>>>> >
>>>> > Minor issues:
>>>> >
>>>> > Nits/editorial comments:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > netmod mailing list
>>>> > netmod@ietf.org
>>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>>
>>