Re: [netmod] John Scudder's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-20: (with COMMENT)

[John Scudder <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for your reply. Sounds good.

Thanks,

—John

> On Oct 7, 2021, at 10:29 AM, Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello John,
> Thank you for the review. I used your comments to improve the draft. See my
> detailed answers below as BALAZS:
> Regards Balazs
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netmod <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of John Scudder via
> Datatracker
> Sent: 2021. október 7., csütörtök 15:39
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: [netmod] John Scudder's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-20: (with COMMENT)
> 
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-20: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format
> /
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for your work on this spec. Thanks also to Kent Watsen for his hard
> work shepherding it.
> 
> I have some comments below which I hope may be helpful.
> 
> 1. Section 1, nit, s/In Appendix C describes/Appendix C describes/ (delete
> the
> "in")
> BALAZS: OK, will be updated
> 
> 2. Section 1.4:
> 
>   A YANG instance data set is created at a specific point of time.  If
>   the data changes afterwards, this is not represented in the instance
>   data set anymore.  The current values may be retrieved at run-time
> 
> I think "anymore" should be cut, for several reasons, the most important of
> which is that it seems to be objectively wrong. The cut would be the minimal
> fix, but did you mean something more like this? "If the data changes
> afterwards, the instance data will no longer represent the current data,
> unless it is updated."
> BALAZS: OK, will be updated with the additional text. 
> 
> 3. Section 2, nit, s/constrains MAY be violated/constraints MAY be violated/
> BALAZS: OK, will be updated
> 
> 4. Section 2.1: I was amazed that the "external method" option, which is
> essentially the "simply don't bother" option, was acceptable to the WG and
> other reviewers. To my eye, the URI method option seems functionally just as
> good (it keeps the content of the file itself small) while providing a
> stronger (though still not very strong) assurance that the schema will
> actually be available.
>   Was "external method" discussed in the WG? Or am I simply in the rough
> for even thinking it surprising?
> BALAZS:  People stated that when instance files are used repeatedly (a new
> file
>        generated every few seconds) in a closed, well defined environment,
> the
>        content-schema may already be known. In this case it is not
> necessary to
>        include it in the file.
> 
> 5. Appendix C: I'm inclined to agree with the shepherd's recommendation to
> remove this entire section
> (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/5DfEi8swOmLEPykBpFICJK6398s/)
> since readability is problematic and it doesn't seem to add to the usability
> of the spec. Since it is, as it says, only a non-normative appendix I don't
> insist, but I strongly encourage you to consider trimming or rewriting it.
> BALAZS: We will consider it. Some editorial updates, trimming done.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod