Re: 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: rtgwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtgwg@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: =?us-ascii?q?A0ChAADI6Xpb/xbLJq1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYQybRIog3CICl+NHC2NUYhGFIFmCxgLhEkCg240GAECAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQECbRwMhTcBAQEEAQEhDwEFNgYFDAQLEgIBAQICAiMDAgInHwMOBgEMBgI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAYMeAYIBD6Z5gS6EaIV0gQuIJIFBP4ESJ4FtfoMQCwEBA4FGgxmCVwKICZJ?= =?us-ascii?q?zCYYpiTEGFYE+SINnglMlhVOLDII5hWOBQTiBUjMaCBsVO4JpCYsMhT8+MAG?= =?us-ascii?q?PGgEB?=
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
Subject: Re: RtgDir Early review: draft-ding-rtgwg-arp-yang-model-02
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/rtgwg/WqGHo1ouO3LRWl-ub2qZSX0m2WE>
X-BeenThere: rtgwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Working Group <rtgwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtgwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtgwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtgwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtgwg>, <mailto:rtgwg-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
>>>>