Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Wed, 27 September 2017 21:05 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 60D361350CC for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:05:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 WjydYdBXz1tZ for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com (mail-wr0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 692011350CE for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id b21so1019660wrg.7 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=YTFlBZ+Vp0dekCbY+A9tZzLqGzBUpx7yX1jEJWNyiFc=; b=dkP5jXxezZigEw4dnyqqyNDRgRZ1mCocJtMq/oCWiviesOapLkwJ/KXvCq/chnY5I1 8kAMlAYf4/xjMHU5Gy8St3E/IrpLFfYIrTgUHpXfgwM/dWGvcMTOfBYJ5hNLdRlwU8aY 5FJIUM8KqCHLePxO9Tr/ea+/fbFOyZJCY5Z6Hiq3iuWWVNaGUvyt8t4XckJVdmwpGGOS de4gfIV6EYBWxZ36vW6FNpc30l3BcoV9LrqgL6Vbz063/GCQwuTplZ4+sysCKDT7OOD0 tcOPAIhn/DiwCzfIIkJhKZT3jzo+sozU/1W0pzYSnDEK/ysWyusYb+/04GoJET1TBS5/ UR3g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=YTFlBZ+Vp0dekCbY+A9tZzLqGzBUpx7yX1jEJWNyiFc=; b=rO0SJEMllQ6ix5I5P9LoDydv1tt9TonbiQOrgQM0roqz+Ai1TQ4RNE9ny/nZSKdLdZ CeXTITyDX+nXii0gCzgb8n7jf1WeVwFx12zOlI4p00H2/ckcnFt+uWHtyyBE6/XDyRLW y1bIK9H7Z2ojocZpZTAOf33Ld1C18UfUQnbXQjHHtVpy+l08NukS4R0dOrqbY6/0hq4V bHthV0MdWrlGkB47hLwCvUPrej5YSA1Tz3Hg8Ri4a3MMCC7GgbFyNh4nsf04Ki7cLC2F bk/uS1YGAl1FRNz61yGPMVkzY22Vytoy9q/H+plJse0b1vmJP3VvxbavyHAX8RAMofW0 jaSw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaXLWKiNHrWyYp7aFQK8xXANuOByBYuH5POqzuxuLtHQusMAucCz lrl1jwvJA+3GL2fOAdPnxkEX2jw0FehM7fZMnW4njw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QAWfW2t8jxo3gmise+8T8pj3dRjOpFPEANodjnhuONlcxasjuHKFlF+MgapC0XF1ws+VZGcI249B+JLUIeeU8Q=
X-Received: by 10.25.235.220 with SMTP id f89mr920296lfk.194.1506546297877; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.18.41 with HTTP; Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:04:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20170927204156.zcm4rpzkcz66avhi@elstar.local>
References: <511deba5-34ca-dde2-6637-ceaf4c4af125@labn.net> <022001d32e14$8d5d4540$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20170915123443.kvagu7dut7oaqoo2@elstar.local> <CABCOCHQcSUSUZMvzVGyaXObHadZqksKge89_6YcH9PCbxMCG=g@mail.gmail.com> <20170916072403.xp37556z6g7b42gr@elstar.local> <CABCOCHT8CMCAnqf6Oe1bKMzQ-B_0GjrQiQ8YXgQJvCo-NBOBBA@mail.gmail.com> <07b5a5df-794e-2ba8-6cad-abfcfadfc4cc@cisco.com> <4d345c3b-a28b-a0e0-27cb-306ff4618d0e@labn.net> <20170927204156.zcm4rpzkcz66avhi@elstar.local>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:04:57 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSNCabpPiWhnpP1Zwq+FD9t_mfZ5MXG3Esah39BxhRAgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>, Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>, netmod WG <netmod@ietf.org>, NetMod WG Chairs <netmod-chairs@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113c1796ec4d30055a322467"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/vZcJ3OV6KymcuFNGciGLTU9D7hQ>
Subject: Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-04 updates]
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: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 21:05:03 -0000
Hi, I do not want to generate more process so I will drop the issue, but the fact that this draft updates RFC 7950 instead of RFC 6244 indicates the problems with it are way beyond using capital letters for a few words. Andy On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 1:41 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder < j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > Lou, > > text is normative without RFC 2119 language. There clearly is no such > 'norm' unless people try to make it a new norm and I am strictly > opposed to that. If the reason to add RFC 2119 language is to comply > to a new norm being created, I have to object. If you want such a norm > to be created, write an I-D and run it through the process. > > /js > > PS: Sorry co-authors I promised to be silent but somehow I can't let > this reasoning go without seriously questioning it. > > On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:20:13PM -0400, Lou Berger wrote: > > I think this goes to if this, or any, draft is a proposed standard or > > not. In other words, if it specifies any behavior that for which > > interoperability between independent implementations is the objective. > > My general view is that in a Proposed Standard RFC, if it impacts > > interoperability, the text should be normative and an RFC should use > > 2119 language to identify such normative text. I accept that this is > > not strictly required by IETF process, but it has become the norm for PS > > track RFCs produced today -- and I see no reason to not follow IETF > norm. > > > > In the context of this draft , as I read it, at least section 5.1 and > > some portions of 4. > > > > Lou > > > > On 9/27/2017 12:28 PM, Robert Wilton wrote: > > > > > > The authors discussed this, and we will close this issue > > > (https://github.com/netmod-wg/datastore-dt/issues/14 - title: Does the > > > NMDA architecture need to use RFC 2119 language?) by adding RFC 2119 > > > text to the document, which will probably be best illustrated with an > > > updated draft revision. > > > > > > For the record, the majority of the authors had the view that RFC 2119 > > > language does not particularly aid readability in this architecture > > > document. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > On 16/09/2017 10:56, Andy Bierman wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sat, Sep 16, 2017 at 12:24 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder > > >> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de > > >> <mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>> wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 02:07:58PM -0700, Andy Bierman wrote: > > >> > Hi, > > >> > > > >> > I strongly agree with Tom that the current draft is an update > > >> to RFC 7950. > > >> > I also strongly disagree with the decision to omit RFC 2119 in > > >> a standards > > >> > track document. IMO RFC 2119 terms need to be used in normative > > >> text, > > >> > especially when dealing with XPath and YANG compiler behavior. > > >> > > > >> > > >> RFC 8174: > > >> > > >> o These words can be used as defined here, but using them is > not > > >> required. Specifically, normative text does not require > > >> the use > > >> of these key words. They are used for clarity and > consistency > > >> when that is what's wanted, but a lot of normative text > > >> does not > > >> use them and is still normative. > > >> > > >> > > >> So what? > > >> Existing YANG specifications use RFC 2119 terms. > > >> This draft uses those terms, just with lower-case. > > >> Either way, the new YANG rules seem half-baked and not ready > > >> for standardization. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> /js > > >> > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > > >> Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | > > >> Germany > > >> Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/ > > >> <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > netmod mailing list > > > netmod@ietf.org > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > -- > Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH > Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany > Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
- [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revised-… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Phil Shafer
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Phil Shafer
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Phil Shafer
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG Last… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> [was Re: WG … Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… t.petch
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> t.petch
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last Call:… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [netmod] RFC 2119 language [was Re: WG Last C… Lou Berger
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> t.petch
- Re: [netmod] <running> vs <intended> Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-revi… Robert Wilton