Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Thu, 08 March 2018 15:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bclaise@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 C5C751241F8; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 07:17:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, 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 hJIGz5Gkv1QX; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 07:17:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from aer-iport-2.cisco.com (aer-iport-2.cisco.com [173.38.203.52]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9627120713; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 07:17:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1762; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520522268; x=1521731868; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qbe8Z2j7fHmJCiItuPOqss0UHTLBPHz8ycUvFTR0AZQ=; b=Gx9dd6GbprWFMCW9Yo8AqlM2XFgbFQ4RaoJMuAXBVglnyXa341noh1NN rLA7a0fDNQPHkZNmzvD/58gb1oj2EO5oy4uM6XvMLM87ZEljNfJtO2zHH AI5Nu0C4Kwc+uasZcwKM8JPgzp5MOV6RhldgZ67bFktGXIZzFfDAMZOWp k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ByAQDfUqFa/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYUlKINQixGPBYEWlCmCFQqFJQKDKzUXAQIBAQEBAQECayeFJAE?= =?us-ascii?q?FIw8BBUEQCw4KAgImAgJXBg0GAgEBF4R+qxiCJoRxg3eCHYEOhCeEBIFmKYMEi?= =?us-ascii?q?CqCYgSaTwmQYQeJCoVXi0WGAoEsIAMzgVIzGggbFYJ9gmOBZj83i2YBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,441,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="2506062"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-4.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Mar 2018 15:17:45 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w28FHjW4008990; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 15:17:45 GMT
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: adam@nostrum.com, iesg@ietf.org, netmod-chairs@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org, sginoza@amsl.com, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis@ietf.org, michelle.cotton@iana.org
References: <6ac9d4d5-d725-ad5a-d275-888afbc827cc@cisco.com> <20180308141508.mgah4poryqqs5weu@elstar.local> <c6f95654-9665-0b1d-eac8-7a0e05201aef@cisco.com> <20180308.153140.634508796793182947.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <be38e648-890f-0a9a-cd29-864592318108@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 16:17:45 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180308.153140.634508796793182947.mbj@tail-f.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/rRkkPSjvUxfW4qYucSwW7C2xLuE>
Subject: Re: [netmod] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:17:50 -0000

On 3/8/2018 3:31 PM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>; wrote:
>> On 3/8/2018 3:15 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 02:21:01PM +0100, Benoit Claise wrote:
>>>> I see two solutions from here.
>>>> 1. we mention "pyang -f yang --yang-canonical --keep-comments FILE" in
>>>> RFC6087bis, with a warning such as: "As the tool matures, a human
>>>> might need
>>>> to polish the results"
>>>> 2. we don't mention "pyang -f yang --yang-canonical --keep-comments
>>>> FILE" in
>>>> RFC6087bis, but we ask the YANG doctors to run the tests.
>>> I am not sure it is a good idea to hard code command line options of
>>> specific tools in a BCP document. We should require that things are
>>> consistently indented and stay away from the advice of the day how
>>> to achieve that.
>> RFC 6087 mentions "pyang --ietf"  and
>> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams mentions "pyang -f tree
>> --tree-line-length 50"
> Maybe we can say that "for example, a tool like pyang can be used ..."
This is a good compromise I would say.

Regards, Benoit
>
>> If not in RFC6087bis, where would we document this?
>> As a rhetorical question: How many of the YANG doctors were aware of
>> and are enforcing this command?
>>
>> Background Info.
>> Typical question I've been receiving lately (in this case from IANA):
>> When requesting the final files from the RFC-Editor, the file they
>> extracted using their tool and the yang modules appear to have a lot
>> of blank space in them. Is this OK?
> The extraction tools often produce additional blank lines b/c it is
> tricky to know how many blank lines were in the original module when
> all you have is the RFC in ascii.
>
>
> /martin
> .
>