[netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09
otilibil@eurecom.fr Mon, 26 March 2018 11:17 UTC
Return-Path: <otilibil@eurecom.fr>
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 D3C2812D95A for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 M3zhPZQ0tNcd for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.eurecom.fr (smtp2.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BDAF129C51 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 04:17:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,364,1517871600"; d="scan'208";a="7836994"
Received: from thorgal.eurecom.fr ([10.3.2.220]) by drago2i.eurecom.fr with ESMTP; 26 Mar 2018 13:17:52 +0200
Received: (from apache@localhost) by thorgal.eurecom.fr (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4/Submit) id w2QBHpxX017476 for netmod@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:17:51 +0200 (CEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: thorgal.eurecom.fr: apache set sender to otilibil@eurecom.fr using -f
Received: from reverse.completel.net (reverse.completel.net [92.103.89.82]) by webmail.eurecom.fr (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:17:51 +0200
Message-ID: <20180326131751.28bgdvrf8kokc4k4@webmail.eurecom.fr>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:17:51 +0200
From: otilibil@eurecom.fr
To: netmod@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4)
X-Originating-IP: 92.103.89.82
X-Remote-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/62.0.3202.89 Safari/537.36
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/wOYvgP8eF4NVc7RcUP1DVC4KbIM>
Subject: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-09
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: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 11:17:58 -0000
Hi members, I comment on that draft: * Instead of "it is often necessary that an existing module (or a set of modules) is added to the data model starting at a non-root location", this would read better: "it is often necessary that an existing module (or a set of modules) be added to the data model at locations other than the root." (Section 1) * 'The "mount-point" statement MUST NOT be used in a YANG version 1 module' Why this documents keeps YANG 1 off from its scope? (Section 3.1) * 'Specifically, a server that doesn?t support the NMDA, MAY implement revision 2016-06-21 of "ietf-yang-library" [RFC7950] under a mount point' [RFC7895] defines "ietf-yang-library", not [RFC7950] (Section 6) * Why not "Tree Diagram" instead of "Data Model"? The wording has become a Best Practice (Section 8) * Idem, "This document...has the following diagram" captures better the Best Practice than "This document...has the following structure" (Section 8) * Same remark on restricting to YANG 1.1: "The ?mount-point? statement MUST NOT be used in a YANG version 1 module, neither explicitly nor via a ?uses? statement (description of the extension "mount-point") * Should this sentence refers only to [RFC6020]? "This document registers a YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]" (Section 10) * The document cites /schema-mounts as "The schema defined by this state data provides detailed information about a server implementation may help an attacker identify the server capabilities and server implementations with known bugs" I think this section should warn also on: ** Section 2.1.2 and 4 of [RFC7895] (the list 'module' contains the leaf 'schema': from which anyone may retrieve a YANG module) ** Section 3 of [RFC6022] (it defines the RPC 'get-schema'; with which anyone may get a YANG module) ** and Section 5 of [RFC8341] (reminding administrators to set user rights accordingly, and giving their defaults values). Regards, Ariel [RFC6020] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020 [RFC7895] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7895 [RFC7950] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950 [RFC8341] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8341 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr
- [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mou… otilibil
- Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema… Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema… Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema… Robert Wilton
- Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema… Yemin (Amy)
- Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-schema… otilibil