Re: [netmod] WG LC draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-02 - 10/2/18 - 10/16/18

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

Andy Bierman <[e-mail]> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:08 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 08:31:43AM -0400, Christian Hopps wrote:
>> >
>> > On Oct 2, 2018, at 4:30 PM, Juergen Schoenwaelder <
>> [e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> > > - Standard tags defined in description statements
>> > >
>> > >  I do not like this. YANG has extension statements and having to
>> > >  parse stuff out of free text description statements seems to be a
>> > >  movement backwards.
>> >
>> > This is used by the human implementer of the module (i.e., they need to
>> write code to implement the module). As such it was not intended for
>> machine parsing.
>> >
>>
>> I am personally not convinced. The whole reason why we have YANG is
>> automation and I believe people will go and write tools to extract
>> tags and having to extract them out of free form text looks like a
>> step backwards.
>>
>
>
> It is more than a step backwards.
> There is an unexplained procedure for declaring the  module-tag conformance,
> in addition to the module-tag mappings.
>
> All YANG designers are supposed to learn the exact text to write (not
> free-form at all)
> and this draft updates 6087bis with procedures for declaring the module-tags
> in the description-stmt.
>
> Also, tool developers are supposed to parse the description-stmt looking
> for the
> module-tag definitions. But instead, tool developers are going to say "Use
> our
> proprietary YANG extension because we are never going to parse description
> statements"

I've added the extension statement.

>> > > - System management
>> > >
>> > >  What is 'system management' and a 'system management protocol'?
>> >
>> > These were derived from the work the RtgYangDT originally did where we
>> were organizing everything under a single device tree. This tree concept
>> was (rightly) abandoned to be replaced with use of tags. Examples of
>> protocols would be Syslog, TACAC+, SNMP, Netconf, ... I've added that to
>> the description.
>> >
>>
>> I am generally not a fan of definition by example. Is SSH a 'system
>> management protocol'?
>>
>
>
> An example is not a definition.
> The IETF is supposed to know the difference.

Do you have some suggestions for text that could replace the examples?

Some of these things seem painful obvious, like do we *really* need to define what we mean by a routing protocol?

Thanks,
Chris.