Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com> Mon, 20 August 2018 16:20 UTC
Return-Path: <rwilton@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEFC1128CB7; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-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 akJeIaAPNv39; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 EFB781271FF; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 09:20:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6830; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1534782013; x=1535991613; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZBFCHxUF1Ers7yjdLxC8WPniYabTxrZbI+5zBfyZRAY=; b=TBJHxEvNQYK5dOC24yYO0XRnGzh0MuJPOd2TZvyHH87GBPnwlW5DtWtr HFKlaWv8Kzl2+GJfEXthfUyXPK6k4xI6H2vng7W9kXir27vTEN5rlkG79 ePu2vwzh64Svr8OzjxT1qkzyggMe6pmMhWFC1Y1Hwu8dziBXQDUCn9UTO 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ChAADI6Xpb/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYQybRIog3CICl+NHC2NUYhGFIFmCxgLhEkCg240GAECAQECAQECbRwMhTcBAQEEAQEhDwEFNgYFDAQLEgIBAQICAiMDAgInHwMOBgEMBgIBAYMeAYIBD6Z5gS6EaIV0gQuIJIFBP4ESJ4FtfoMQCwEBA4FGgxmCVwKICZJzCYYpiTEGFYE+SINnglMlhVOLDII5hWOBQTiBUjMaCBsVO4JpCYsMhT8+MAGPGgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,265,1531785600"; d="scan'208";a="5984594"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Aug 2018 16:20:10 +0000
Received: from [10.63.23.106] (dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com [10.63.23.106]) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w7KGK99B022139; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:20:10 GMT
To: tom petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>, Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, "draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model.all@ietf.org" <draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model.all@ietf.org>, "rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org" <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org>
Cc: "rtg-dir@ietf.org" <rtg-dir@ietf.org>, "rtgwg@ietf.org" <rtgwg@ietf.org>
References: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE292563246@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <30620f3f-be62-bdbd-72fb-fab27439351b@cisco.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE292566105@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <037301d42a4d$aa9dbe60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <1e7f439a-b050-0ab2-bce3-9b91e2926b22@cisco.com> <017f01d42b08$850ad780$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Robert Wilton <rwilton@cisco.com>
Message-ID: <d0e9e7f5-2a43-4ac1-b921-22a8d8ac3825@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 17:20:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <017f01d42b08$850ad780$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 10.63.23.106, dhcp-ensft1-uk-vla370-10-63-23-106.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: aer-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/s-H36OcMam1XvfRCE7DgBeHQRXE>
Subject: Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 16:20:18 -0000
Tom, Thanks for the clarification. I'll fix this up. Thanks, Rob On 03/08/2018 10:04, tom petch wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Wilton" <rwilton@cisco.com> > To: "tom petch" <ietfa@btconnect.com>; "Mach Chen" > <mach.chen@huawei.com>; <draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model.all@ietf.org>; > <rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org> > Cc: <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; <rtgwg@ietf.org> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 12:06 PM >> On 02/08/2018 11:46, tom petch wrote: >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Mach Chen" <mach.chen@huawei.com> >>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2018 2:58 AM >>> >>>> Hi Rob, >>>> >>>> Looks good to me! >>> Well it would if we were allowed to have [References] in the > Abstract >>> which we are not allowed to have:-) >> OK, I can remove those. But the NMDA one I copied verbatim from the >> abstract in RFC 8343 ;-) > Um, no. Let me try again. RFC8343 has > > The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network > Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) defined in RFC 8342. > > which is fine. > > For this I-D, you propose > >>>> The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network >>>> Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342]. > and it is the [ ] that I see as a problem. Abstracts, like YANG > Modules, must be plain text so that they can exist independently of an > RFC which means that XML/HTML type anchors are not allowed, and I read > the [ ] as reflecting an underlying anchor, which needs changing to > plain text. > > Tom Petch > >> Thanks, >> Rob >> >> >>> Tom Petch >>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> Mach >>>> >>>> From: Robert Wilton [mailto:rwilton@cisco.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 01, 2018 11:37 PM >>>> To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>; >>> draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model.all@ietf.org; rtgwg-chairs@ietf.org >>>> Cc: rtg-dir@ietf.org; rtgwg@ietf.org >>>> >>>> Hi Mach, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the comments, we will address all of these. >>>> >>>> Specifically for the abstract, I propose changing the text to: >>>> >>>> " >>>> >>>> This document defines a YANG data model for the management of > the >>>> Address Resolution Protocol (ARP). It extends the basic ARP >>>> >>>> functionality contained in the ietf-ip YANG data model, defined > in >>>> [RFC8344], to provide management of optional ARP features and >>>> >>>> statistics. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network >>>> >>>> Management Datastore Architecture defined in [RFC8342]. >>>> >>>> " >>>> Thanks, >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> On 01/08/2018 09:48, Mach Chen wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have been selected to do a routing directorate “early” review of >>> this draft. >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The routing directorate will, on request from the working group > chair, >>> perform an “early” review of a draft before it is submitted for >>> publication to the IESG. The early review can be performed at any > time >>> during the draft’s lifetime as a working group document. The purpose > of >>> the early review depends on the stage that the document has reached. > As >>> this document is in working group last call, my focus for the review > was >>> to determine whether the document is ready to be published. Please >>> consider my comments along with the other working group last call >>> comments. >>>> >>>> For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see >>> http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir >>>> >>>> Document: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02 >>>> >>>> Reviewer: Mach Chen >>>> >>>> Review Date: 01 August 2018 >>>> >>>> Intended Status: Standards Track >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Summary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The draft defines a YANG model for ARP configurations, which > covers >>> static ARP, ARP caching, proxy ARP and gratuitous ARP. The model is > very >>> short and the content is straightforward. It can be a reasonable > start >>> point for WG adoption call. >>>> >>>> General comments: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Although I am not a native English speaker, I also feel that the >>> document needs some enhancements on its wording and grammar to make > it >>> more clean and readable. >>>> >>>> For example, the following text needs some rewording or may be >>> removed. >>>> Abstract: >>>> >>>> "The data model performs as >>>> >>>> a guideline for configuring ARP capabilities on a system. It > is >>>> intended this model be used by service providers who manipulate >>>> >>>> devices from different vendors in a standard way." >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Specific comments: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. It's lack of the IANA section. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. Section 3.1 and Section 3.3, suggest to add relevant references > to >>> ARP caching and gratuitous ARP. >>>> >>>> 3. import ietf-interfaces { >>>> >>>> prefix if; >>>> >>>> description >>>> >>>> "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) >>>> >>>> compatible version of the ietf-interfaces module >>>> >>>> is required."; >>>> >>>> } >>>> >>>> import ietf-ip { >>>> >>>> prefix ip; >>>> >>>> description >>>> >>>> "A Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) >>>> >>>> compatible version of the ietf-ip module is >>>> >>>> required."; >>>> >>>> } >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Lack of the reference RFCs. >>>> >>>> And the descriptions seem not appropriate, some of other > descriptions >>> in this document have the similar issue, suggest to revise those >>> descriptions. >>>> >>>> In addition, idnits tool shows: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC826' is mentioned on line 77, but not >>> defined >>>> >>>> == Missing Reference: 'RFC6536' is mentioned on line 583, but > not >>> defined >>>> >>>> ** Obsolete undefined reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC > 8341) >>>> >>>> >>>> == Unused Reference: 'I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis' is defined on > line >>> 606, >>>> but no explicit reference was found in the text >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> == Unused Reference: 'RFC0826' is defined on line 636, but no >>> explicit >>>> reference was found in the text >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> Mach >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- >>> -------- >>> >>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rtgwg mailing list >>>> rtgwg@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg >>>>
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-a… Mach Chen
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtg… Robert Wilton
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtg… Mach Chen
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtg… tom petch
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtg… Robert Wilton
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtg… tom petch
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtg… Robert Wilton
- [RTG-DIR] defining signaling parameters for GMPLS tom petch
- Re: [RTG-DIR] defining signaling parameters for G… Lou Berger
- Re: [RTG-DIR] defining signaling parameters for G… tom petch