Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references

["Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>]

Tom,

This does not satisfy the reference requirement?

    leaf pattern-match {
      if-feature select-match;
      type string;
      description
        "This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression 
         string that can be used to select a syslog message for 
         logging. The match is performed on the SYSLOG-MSG field.";
      reference
        "RFC 5424: The Syslog Protocol
         Std-1003.1-2008 Regular Expressions";
    }

Please help me understand what more you want.

Thanks,

Clyde

On 12/14/17, 3:55 AM, "t.petch" <[e-mail]> wrote:

    Clyde
    
    A quick glance at -18 shows that there is now a Normative Reference for
    Posix - good- but I do not see it referenced - not so good:-(
    
    I think that there needs to be a reference in 4.1
    
    Tom Petch
    
    
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[e-mail]>
    To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[e-mail]>; "Kent Watsen"
    <[e-mail]>; "t.petch" <[e-mail]>;
    <[e-mail]>
    Cc: <[e-mail]>
    Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:26 PM
    Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup
    issues -references
    
    
    > Benoit,
    >
    > There were approximately 24 changes requested from you, Kent, Robert
    Wilton, and Tom Petch. I have made approximately half of them and will
    try to finish another revision of the draft by Friday.
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Clyde
    >
    > On 9/27/17, 3:24 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[e-mail]>
    wrote:
    >
    >     Clyde,
    >
    >     Do you know your next step to progress this document?
    >
    >     Regards, Benoit
    >     > I meant to say something about the .1 vs .2 difference.  My
    comment
    >     > assumes that it's supposed to be .1, but we of course should use
    >     > whatever is correct.
    >     >
    >     > I also don't know much about that standards body.
    >     >
    >     > K.
    >     >
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > ----- Original Message -----
    >     > From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
    >     > Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:08 PM
    >     >
    >     >> Hi Tom,
    >     >>
    >     >> Thanks.  The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match'
    leaf
    >     >> to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for
    S4.1
    >     >> to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a draft-level reference.
    >     > and I am unfamiliar with that standards body so am looking for a
    little
    >     > more.
    >     >
    >     > Is STD-nnnn always Posix or do we need to say Posix 1003 or
    Posix
    >     > Std-1003 or is Std-1003 completely unrelated to Posix 1003?
    >     >
    >     > Is there a difference between Std-1003.1-2008 and Posix 1003.2
    ie is the
    >     > .1 or .2 significant?  You want Std-1003.1; the description
    contains
    >     > Posix 1003.2; the normative Reference is to Std-1003.1-2008.
    >     >
    >     > You pointed out that the Normative Reference is not used; well
    if we can
    >     > sort out what the standard is and get the right label in
    Normative
    >     > References then we can - must - include this in Section 4.1
    which will
    >     > resolve that comment of yours.
    >     >
    >     > The discussions last July had Clyde saying he wants Posix 1003.2
    so if
    >     > Std-1003 and Posix 1003 are the same but .1 and.2 are different,
    then
    >     > you are asking for a semantic change against Clyde's wishes.
    >     >
    >     > I hope my confusion is sufficiently clear, at least to Clyde!
    >     >
    >     > Tom Petch
    >     >
    >     >> I was going to point out the typo "the the" as well, but
    figured
    >     >> that the RFC Editor would get it.
    >     >>
    >     >> K. // shepherd
    >     >>
    >     >>
    >     >> --
    >     >>
    >     >> Kent
    >     >>
    >     >> You flag Std-1003.1-2008 as listed as a normative reference but
    not
    >     > used
    >     >> anywhere in the document.  In the Descriptions, but not in the
    s.4.1
    >     >> references, I see
    >     >>
    >     >> This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression ...
    >     >>
    >     >> twice, which may, or may not, relate to this issue.
    >     >>
    >     >> Back in July, clyde said
    >     >> "I will insert a normative reference to POSIX 1003.2 in the
    next
    >     >> revision of the draft."
    >     >>
    >     >> In a similar vein, RFC6991 appears in a reference statement but
    >     > nowhere
    >     >> else.
    >     >>
    >     >> As you point out, RFC6021 is referenced but is obsoleted by
    RFC6991 so
    >     >> should not be.
    >     >>
    >     >> And in a slightly different vein,
    >     >>
    >     >>     registry [RFC7895]/>.  Following the format in [RFC7950]/>,
    the the
    >     >>
    >     >> looks odd for plain text and for the repetition of 'the'..
    >     >>
    >     >> Tom Petch
    >     >>
    >     >> ----- Original Message -----
    >     >> From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
    >     >> To: <[e-mail]>
    >     >> Cc: <[e-mail]>
    >     >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM
    >     >> Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues
    >     >>
    >     >>
    >     >>> Clyde, all,
    >     >>>
    >     >>> In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the
    following
    >     >> issues that I think need to be addressed before the document
    can be
    >     > sent
    >     >> to Benoit for AD review:
    >     >>>
    >     >>> 1. Idnits found the following:
    >     >>>
    >     >>>    Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1
    comment
    >     >> (--).
    >     >>>      ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the
    document, the
    >     >> longest one
    >     >>>           being 3 characters in excess of 72.
    >     >>>
    >     >>>      ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021 (Obsoleted by
    RFC
    >     > 6991)
    >     >>>      ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC
    6587
    >     >>>
    >     >>>      == Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on line 359,
    but
    >     > not
    >     >> defined
    >     >>>           '[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]....'
    >     >>>
    >     >>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1406,
    but no
    >     >> explicit
    >     >>>            reference was found in the text
    >     >>>            '[RFC7895]  Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K.
    Watsen,
    >     > "YANG
    >     >> Module L...'
    >     >>>       == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 1435,
    but no
    >     >> explicit
    >     >>>            reference was found in the text
    >     >>>            '[RFC6242]  Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF
    Protocol
    >     > over
    >     >> Secure Sh...'
    >     >>>
    >     >>> 2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang",  which is missing
    >     >> "@yyyy-mm-dd" in its name
    >     >>> 3.  neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with
    >     >> ietf-syslog.yang.    pyang says
    >     >>>        for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement "identity"
    must
    >     > have
    >     >> a "description"
    >     >>>        substatement.
    >     >>>
    >     >>> 4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint:
    >     >>>        - for both examples: Missing element's "namespace".
    (/config)
    >     >>>        - just removing the "<config>" element envelop resolves
    this
    >     >> error.
    >     >>> 5. the 2nd example uses IP address "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but
    this
    >     >> SHOULD be a
    >     >>>       domain name (e.g., foo.example.com)
    >     >>>
    >     >>> 6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed in a
    >     >> 'description' statement,
    >     >>>       there should be a 'reference' statement for that RFC.
    >     >>>
    >     >>> 7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate what
    they
    >     >> point at, they now all
    >     >>>       just say "leafref".  Did you do this on purpose, or are
    you
    >     > using
    >     >> a different tree
    >     >>>       output generator from -15?
    >     >>>
    >     >>> 8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it probably
    >     > should
    >     >> be informative.
    >     >>> 9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference, but it
    is not
    >     >> used anywhere in the document.
    >     >>> 10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but it is
    not
    >     > used
    >     >> anywhere in the document.
    >     >>> 11. the document fails to declare its normative references to
    >     >> ietf-keystore and ietf-tls-client-server.
    >     >>>          Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and [RFC
    xxxx]"
    >     >> references…
    >     >>> 12.  The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric.  Either
    put
    >     >> both registry insertions into
    >     >>>          subsections, or keep them both at the top-level…
    >     >>>
    >     >>> 13. reviewing the final document against my original YD
    review, I
    >     > have
    >     >> the following responses.  Let's be sure to close out these
    items as
    >     >> well.  Ref:
    >     > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11
    >     >> s-0gOfCe8NSE
    >     >>> 1. ok
    >     >>> 2. better
    >     >>> 3. should be: s/the message/these messages/  [RFC Editor
    might've
    >     >> caught this]
    >     >>> 4. better
    >     >>> 5. still feel the same way, but no biggee
    >     >>> 6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when, and
    only
    >     >> when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here."
    >     >>> 7. fixed
    >     >>> 8. fixed
    >     >>> 9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't
    satisfying...
    >     >>> 10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask wasn't
    among
    >     > them
    >     >>> 11. better
    >     >>> 12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented too,
    right?
    >     >>> 13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram Notation"
    >     >>> 14. fixed
    >     >>> 15. fixed
    >     >>> 16. fixed
    >     >>> 17. fine
    >     >>> 18. still a weird line brake here.  try putting the quoted
    string on
    >     >> the next line.
    >     >>> 19. fixed
    >     >>> 20. fixed
    >     >>> 21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines)
    >     >>> 22. fine
    >     >>>
    >     >>>
    >     >>> PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his AD
    review.
    >     >>>
    >     >>> Thanks,
    >     >>> Kent  // shepherd & yang doctor
    >     >>>
    >     >>>
    >     >>>
    >     >>> _______________________________________________
    >     >>> netmod mailing list
    >     >>> [e-mail]
    >     >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    >     >>>
    >     >>
    >     >>
    >     >>
    >     >
    >     >
    >     > _______________________________________________
    >     > netmod mailing list
    >     > [e-mail]
    >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
    >
    >
    >
    >