Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06

Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org> Wed, 06 March 2019 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <chopps@chopps.org>
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 BEB7A13104A; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:55:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 HkQJb07yMCbw; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:55:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.chopps.org (smtp.chopps.org [54.88.81.56]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C748130DC4; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:55:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from stubbs.int.chopps.org (047-050-069-038.biz.spectrum.com [47.50.69.38]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by smtp.chopps.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EA7760505; Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:55:16 -0500 (EST)
From: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>
Message-Id: <CD8D5A9F-B54E-484E-BE51-9BB6DF13CB28@chopps.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5DC4D43C-68B6-4B89-860B-CD2807558CEA"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:55:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <E1h1cPj-0004AS-TN@b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk>
Cc: Christian Hopps <chopps@chopps.org>, gen-art@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.all@ietf.org, "<ietf@ietf.org>" <ietf@ietf.org>, netmod@ietf.org
To: Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>
References: <E1h1cPj-0004AS-TN@b-painless.mh.aa.net.uk>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/zEEkxGW0cpksapEOwijZo0wIXaM>
Subject: Re: [netmod] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 06 Mar 2019 22:55:21 -0000

[I covered this in the previous reply I just sent, and updated the model text in response too..]

The intent here is to not restrict users of tags where we don't have to. The prefix is only intended to avoid collision between disconnected groups (designers, implementers and users), since users are the final group to add/modify/use the tags we don't need to restrict them (and so we shouldn't).

Thanks,
Chris.

> On Mar 6, 2019, at 2:39 PM, Elwyn Davies <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>; wrote:
> 
> Hi.
> 
> After completing my review, I realized that there was a further minor issue related to the possible values of tag prefixes, possible values of standardized prefixes and behaviour of implementations in the face of tag prefixes or values that are not in the relevant registries.
> 
> I think that the text in s2 should be reinforced to emphasise that the only prefixes that should be expected are those in the IANA registry defined in s7.1.
> 
> Either a new section or possibly in s3 text should be added to define the behaviour of YANG implementations that encounter tags with prefixes that are not in the s7.1 registry and tags with prefix ietf: that are not in the s7.2 registry.
> 
> Regards,
> Elwyn Davies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Samsung tablet.
> 
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <ietf-secretariat-reply@ietf.org>;
> Date: 06/03/2019 00:26 (GMT+00:00)
> To: gen-art@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, netmod@ietf.org
> Subject: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of   draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
> 
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> 
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> 
> <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>;.
> 
> Document: draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review Date: 2019-03-05
> IETF LC End Date: 2019-03-03
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
> 
> Summary:
> Almost ready.  There are a couple of minor issues and a small number of nits.
> Apologies for the slightly late delivery of the review.
> 
> Major issues:
> None
> 
> Minor issues:
> Abstract/s1: I would judge that RFC 8407 ought to be normative since it is
> updated.
> 
> S4.2: using the Netmod working group as contact point for the module is not
> future proof.  I am  not sure what the correct contact ought to be: IESG?
> 
> S7.2: [This is a thought that occurred to me...] ought there to be an ietf:
> security tag?
> 
> S9: I would consider RFCs 8199, 8340, 8342 and 8407 to be normative
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> Abstract: s/modules/module's/
> 
> Abstract:
> OLD:
> This document also provides guidance to future model writers, as such, this
> document updates RFC8407.
> 
> NEW:
> This document also provides guidance to future model writers; as such, this
> document updates RFC8407.
> 
> ENDS
> 
> S1.1, title: s/use cases of/use cases for/
> 
> S1.1, para 1: s/documents progression/document's development/
> 
> S1.1, paras 2, 3 and 5: Suggest s/E.g./For example/
> 
> S1.1, para 4: s/e.g./e.g.,/
> 
> S2, para 1:
>    > All tags SHOULD begin with a prefix indicating who owns their definition.
> 
> If I read correctly, the YANG definition in s4.2 REQUIRES that all tags have a
> prefix.  For clarity, it would better if this read:
>    All tags MUST begin with a prefix; it is intended that this prefix SHOULD
>    [or maybe 'should'] indicate
>  the ownership or origination of the definition.
> 
> S2, para 1: s/yang type/YANG type/ (I think)
> 
> S2.2: s/follwing/following/
> 
> S3.1, para 2:
> OLD:
> If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also be Section
> 2.1. Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new standard tags to the IANA
> registry, and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.
> 
> NEW:
> If the module is defined in an IETF standards track document, the tags MUST use
> the prefix defined in Section 2.1. Thus, definitions of new modules can drive
> the addition of new standard tags to the IANA registry defined in Section 7.2,
> and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.
> 
> ENDS
> 
> S3.2: s/standard/IETF Standard/
> 
> S3.3: It would be useful to introduce the term 'masking' used later in the YANG
> module definition.
> 
> S4.1: I think this usage of RFC 8340 makes it normative.
> 
> S4.2, extension module-tag definition: This should contain a pointer to RFC
> 8342 which discusses the system origin concept.
> 
> Major issues:
> 
> Minor issues:
> 
> Nits/editorial comments:
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod