Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05

Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com> Fri, 03 November 2017 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <vladimir@transpacket.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 CBBB713FF2F for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:17:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.89
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.89 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT=0.01, 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 vi-qZpGpfWEH for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com (s91205186171.blix.com [91.205.186.171]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2386013FF2E for <netmod@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 11:17:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4112B1406159; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:17:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.transpacket.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id V3ancIgTttsU; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:17:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13C98140615A; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:17:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.transpacket.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.transpacket.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id RJACspB7NgaT; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:17:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.209.122] (s1853520235.blix.com [185.35.202.35]) by mail.transpacket.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DFA141406155; Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:17:01 +0100 (CET)
To: "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <4b313b03-73e2-1633-5936-4526ca67f820@transpacket.com> <D6221298.D4E52%acee@cisco.com>
From: Vladimir Vassilev <vladimir@transpacket.com>
Message-ID: <f70e9ec3-10ee-9277-8587-a8bf20c45739@transpacket.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 19:17:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <D6221298.D4E52%acee@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: nb
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/uSFQuB1bRSXu-8a-64ooGXWvfZQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05
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: Fri, 03 Nov 2017 18:17:07 -0000

On 11/03/2017 05:49 PM, Acee Lindem (acee) wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Thanks for comments - see inline.
>
> On 10/29/17, 8:43 PM, "netmod on behalf of Vladimir Vassilev"
> <netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of vladimir@transpacket.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have reviewed draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05. My conclusion is that
>> the YANG modules part of the draft have been successfully modified in
>> accordance with sec. '4.23.3 NMDA Transition Guidelines' of
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14. The modifications are coherent with the
>> ietf-interfaces@2017-08-17.yang module in
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00 and ietf-ip@2017-08-21.yang module in
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7277bis-00.
>>
>> Vladimir
>>
>>
>> Review of draft-acee-netmod-rfc8022bis-05.
>> Vladimir Vassilev
>> 2017-10-30
>>
>> 'Abstract':
>> 'Introduction 1':
>>   - Both Abstract and Sec 1. contain duplicated text which can be removed
> >from Abstract. The text in Sec 1. can be simplified:
>> OLD:
>>     This version of these YANG modules uses new names for these YANG
>>     models.  The main difference from the first version is that this
>>     version fully conforms to the Network Management Datastore
>>     Architecture (NMDA).  Consequently, this document obsoletes RFC 8022.
>> NEW:
>>     This version of the Routing Management data model supports the Network
>>     Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA)
>> [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores].
> The Abstract and Introduction sections are independent and the information
> is pertinent to both.
>
>>
>> '7.  Routing Management YANG Module':
>>
>>   - Why should address-family identity be different e.g. mandatory
>> "false"; for system created RIBs? I think this needs some explanation
>> (Page 21):
>>             ...
>>             uses address-family {
>>               description
>>                 "Address family of the RIB.
>>
>>                  It is mandatory for user-controlled RIBs.  For
>>                  system-controlled RIBs it can be omitted; otherwise, it
>>                  must match the address family of the corresponding state
>>                  entry.";
>>               refine "address-family" {
>>                 mandatory "false";
>>               }
>>             }
>>             ...
> I will discuss this with my co-authors.
>>   - Suggested change of 'base address-family;' -> 'base
>> rt:address-family;' for identity ipv4 and ipv6 (ref.
>> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14#section-4.2):
>>
>>      o The local module prefix MUST be used instead of no prefix in
>>      all "default" statements for an "identityref" or
>> "instance-identifier"
>>          data type
> I added “rt:” where it was missing to the identityref statements. This
> will be in the next revision.
I made this one sound credible but later noticed I quoted irrelevant 
text from draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14 ('default' is not 'base'). And 
the text in RFC7950 '5.4.  Resolving Grouping, Type, and Identity Names' 
states that static scoping applies to identifiers in type statements 
which overrules 7.13 'The "uses" statement'.

My bad. The change is redundant.
>> '8.  IPv4 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module'
>> (ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing@2017-10-14.yang):
>> '9.  IPv6 Unicast Routing Management YANG Module'
>> (ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing@2017-10-14.yang):
>>
>>
>>   - The ietf-ipv4-unicast-routing and ietf-ipv6-unicast-routing modules
>> import the ietf-routing without revision (ref. rfc6087#section-4.6):
>>
>>
>>      o The revision-date substatement within the imports statement SHOULD
>> be
>>      present if any groupings are used from the external module."
> Since these modules are all in the same draft, I’d rather leave out the
> revision date as it is cleaner without it. Let me discuss with my
> co-authors.
>>
>> 'Appendix D. Data Tree Example':
>>
>>   - The example in the Appendix D. has not been updated and it must be
>> extended in order to demonstrate a usecase of operational datastore of
>> configuration data with different origin (intended, system, etc.)
>> similar to the 'Appendix C. Example Data' of
>> draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-05.
> Actually, none of the examples accessed operational state date in RFC
> 8022. However, I agree that this should be added and we’ll work on it.
>>
>> Nits:
>>   - s/Figures 1/Figure 1/
>>   - s/systemindependently/system independently/
> Thanks for catching - I fixed these in the -01 version of
> draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-01.txt.
>
> Thanks,
> Acee
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod