Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> Wed, 20 December 2017 16:10 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 33D351241F3 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:10:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 bmkSzXA3myPL for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:10:44 -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 5554D1200FC for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:10:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9238; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1513786243; x=1514995843; h=subject:from:to:references:message-id:date:mime-version: in-reply-to; bh=0NzzG+VIywPtEjHTnGTLt2p433AceY6g6X0oQOMhYwU=; b=OwnM/g5rbns55ABRp8wpQCwS2TttVNaZLGQ1XYCicuSgRdbJOXcYMFMk 8JeA2u41DIUtxyetSOmWKW/KXYhEBJnOORiGcFQ+F5AFwkmmG8F+oQCUz hxegu91ni2BASbBuKSihdoksY3nns4eMEbXKgDCckra7b0i5ZZfztU/1P k=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BVAgCOijpa/xbLJq1bGgEBAQEBAgEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEIAQEBAYQkdCeEBosVj2qSCIVQFIIBChgBDIRHTwKFVBcBAQEBAQEBAQFrKIU?= =?us-ascii?q?kAgEDAQEhSxsLQgICJzAGDQYCAQEWihEQpFaCJyaKRgEBAQEBAQEDAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?RwFg3+DaIFpKYMDgy8BgTaDToJjBaNEiACNLoIXigEkhzyNHoFZiAWBOyEDNIF?= =?us-ascii?q?PMhoIGxU8gimCVByBaEA3AYpjAQEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,432,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="1049921"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-1.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Dec 2017 16:10:41 +0000
Received: from [10.55.221.36] (ams-bclaise-nitro3.cisco.com [10.55.221.36]) by aer-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vBKGAf9T024810 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:10:41 GMT
From: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
To: NETMOD Working Group <netmod@ietf.org>
References: <ad97d611-b647-e72e-3a20-65dd0b9cb06e@cisco.com> <9e66674b-4c6b-94f4-5fb6-4013c390c5db@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <1d21349e-0ffa-0a66-371c-4e1de948475e@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2017 17:10:41 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <9e66674b-4c6b-94f4-5fb6-4013c390c5db@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------1E11859226632F282C2413E1"
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/wRbJ9xgNpMC8gvJhwo75DUNvpj4>
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06
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, 20 Dec 2017 16:10:46 -0000

Dear all,

One more comment, which I forgot in my AD review.
The -state YANG module in the appendix should actually be "deprecated".

Regards, Benoit
> Dear all,
>
> Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06.
> Note that if you post the new version soon (before the end of this 
> week), I could start the IETF last call, and the draft could be on Jan 
> 11th IESG telechat.
>
> - I don't believe that the RFC 2119 keywords are right on the 
> following sentences (SHOULD => should):
>
>     o  The hardware data model SHOULD be suitable for new implementations
>        to use as is.
>
>     o  The hardware data model defined in this document can be
>        implemented on a system that also implements ENTITY-MIB, thus the
>        mapping between the hardware data model and ENTITY-MIB SHOULD be
>        clear.
>
> -
>
>
>       1.2. Tree Diagrams
>
>
>     Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
>     [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>].
>
> You could remove the above and add the reference to section 3.
>     This document defines the YANG module "ietf-hardware", which has the
>     following structure [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams 
> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-entity-06#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>]:
> Martin, be consistent with all your YANG modules. So keep your temp 
> versions of RFC7223bis and RFC7277bis consistent as well.
> - Some objects are read-write in RFC6933:
>        entPhysicalSerialNum
>        entPhysicalAlias
>        entPhysicalAssetID
>        entPhysicalUris
>
> For example, entPhysicalSerialNum being read-write always bothered me.
> serial-num is now "config false", which is a good news IMO.
> In the reverse direction, entPhysicalMfgName is read-only in RFC6933, while it's "config true" in draft-ietf-netmod-entity
> You should mention these ro/rw differences with RFC6933.
> There might be other differences.
>
> -
> UUIDorZero
>
> entPhysicalUUID OBJECT-TYPE
>      SYNTAX      UUIDorZero
>      MAX-ACCESS  read-only
>      STATUS      current
>      DESCRIPTION
>              "This object contains identification information
>              about the physical entity.  The object contains a
>              Universally Unique Identifier, the syntax of this object
>              must conform toRFC 4122, Section 4.1 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122#section-4.1>;.
>
>              A zero-length octet string is returned if no UUID
>              information is known."
>
>
> The YANG module is:
>
>           leaf uuid {
>             type yang:uuid;
>             config false;
>             description
>               "A Universally Unique Identifier of the component.";
>             reference "RFC 6933 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6933>;: entPhysicalUUID";
>           }
>
>
> Where:
>
>   typedef uuid {
>      type string {
>        pattern '[0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-'
>              + '[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}';
>      }
>      description
>       "A Universally Unique IDentifier in the string representation
>        defined in RFC 4122.  The canonical representation uses
>        lowercase characters.
>
>        The following is an example of a UUID in string representation:
>        f81d4fae-7dec-11d0-a765-00a0c91e6bf6
>        ";
>      reference
>       "RFC 4122: A Universally Unique IDentifier (UUID) URN
>                  Namespace";
>    }
>
> Again a difference between the MIB and YANG module to mention in the document?
>
>
> Regards, Benoit (as OPS AD)
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod