[Teas] Re: Gunter Van de Velde's Abstain on draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27: (with COMMENT)

[Dhruv Dhody <[e-mail]>]

Hi Gunter,

On Sat, Jun 8, 2024 at 9:10 AM Gunter Van de Velde via Datatracker <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Gunter Van de Velde has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27: Abstain
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> # Gunter Van de Velde, RTG AD, comments for draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27
>
> Please find https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> documenting the handling of ballots.
>
> Many thanks for the RTG-DIR reviews from Darren Dukes and many thanks to
> Vishnu
> Pavan Beeram for the Shepherd write-up.
>
> Please find below one non-blocking ABSTAIN regarding the YANG node names
> used.
> While this should be relatively straightforward to address, it will involve
> quite a bit of effort to correct the node names throughout all instances.
>
> #ABSTAIN items
> #=============
> ##(resolved) ABSTAIN1
> One of the motivations to use YANG is to have human readable structure to
> understand config and state of a device. When looking through the document
> i
> see many very abbreviated acronyms. e.g. vn, vn-id, src, src-vn-ap.id, etc
>
> Agreed with Dhruv (author): abbreviations will be expanded upon in
> descriptions
> as the abbreviations used are well known in TEAS area.
>
>
Dhruv: Ack. Updated in the new revision.



> ##ABSTAIN2
> Using full/fragments of parent-node names in sibling-node names is
> something
> that netmod has recommendations against.
>
> Reference:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-20#section-4.3.1
>
> “
>    Identifiers SHOULD include complete words and/or well-known acronyms
>    or abbreviations.  Child nodes within a container or list SHOULD NOT
>    replicate the parent identifier.  YANG identifiers are hierarchical
>    and are only meant to be unique within the the set of sibling nodes
>    defined in the same module namespace.
>
>    It is permissible to use common identifiers such as "name" or "id" in
>    data definition statements, especially if these data nodes share a
>    common data type.
> “
>
>
Dhruv: I have made this change in the new revision -28.
See
https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-27&url2=draft-ietf-teas-actn-vn-yang-28&difftype=--html



> Note: Originally these were blocking DISCUSS, however using non-recommended
> yang node names, is not one of the agreed reasons to have a discuss
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/statement-iesg-discuss-criteria-in-iesg-review-20140507/
>
> The yang tree documented can be implemented and will interop. Hence i
> moved the
> original blocking DISCUSS to a non-blocking ABSTAIN position with following
> meaning: "I oppose this document but understand that others differ and am
> not
> going to stand in the way of the others."
>
>
>
Dhruv: I understand.

Thanks!
Dhruv