Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends

"Mehmet Ersue" <> Fri, 09 March 2018 18:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC3F12778D for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 10:49:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WQIVnZ9leMEC for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 10:49:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7530B124239 for <>; Fri, 9 Mar 2018 10:49:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id t6so5607496wmt.5 for <>; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:49:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=PDMSIsj0NpChICHS9NKuL7kM1wTnM1fe9gR88f+ml1U=; b=gEqsADS/8Di4CK8r6AQVNHRLyRsYOhzwJelpLVjb6Ob4TSdbFG763sLf3FbdvUXN0l bIRorwNcxqHiaUwsj9HgorSf06qFkXZDYuiWoSMmoHnaAYrEEmSgyLjbwYgWRHyhHSbc jorY7XgDWzfbjhNRKdD0ePS6DPkgZQKY0H+4gzXPhBIeAqVZNOAuJ/R30hdub4g3CAug V3bFd6eIrpUPjpoiuJUcodip4ziBB8ui939CgTQBPNS6qR7CeJRhER433b+PSo1dBdA7 h6vCnOMEahvA+c3w7N+3rnOFQWy8GM0eeaofifDAXKXJVJNLLtPk4aIGXApQWJw1hhdt Iyog==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date :message-id:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=PDMSIsj0NpChICHS9NKuL7kM1wTnM1fe9gR88f+ml1U=; b=kgCBqqW7S2CyS4RDWC3otbXObckOSBfgOVx58eWCpmNqAFqCNv3U8zp4T5cQfqDyaN IAppIGvC+6RzlU+mvRfDAMwOY13lf5HVp6xa91EJfL+yzVYUenVsjHT09WjbiSeUuGtj a3jQPw96yCdhYOPqW/EtvZ4QHSlnJIk8dZBp2X8Tu6rbRAve4G8eHv41wSSpnOllmbIz M8ER7qVvnN4axb4oa8+fEMAHmKpXVBfTiHjYLMTNR04nn6GJM+H08R2evQOzJ4zxN7qJ BKwH53u/YYoST295nNs0l32WZ5zpUiXlxk4WxFAu18irevAvTEoc1A0hZ+/PGzxgHRBm A3Fw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPC9uB9OXUTH3ot5uS+iByTu+ylK0wKtoPaqR1B3vYDcokw89fmV SuM+XUlAugHujrUoTFqVWJk1zg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELvHgZXVVOl1/6OHp+no6TnXm3oEEtTBcMBNZhHIonlv0LUZzRvd1sVmTT/92pIhMG0YtdwFxQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id h5mr39255010edn.275.1520621382001; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:49:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOPFLHJVQJ ([2001:16b8:2dff:d700:5ccd:21fe:45e0:3df]) by with ESMTPSA id g50sm1195020edb.56.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 09 Mar 2018 10:49:41 -0800 (PST)
From: "Mehmet Ersue" <>
To: "'Kent Watsen'" <>, "'Martin Bjorklund'" <>
Cc: <>
References: <> <> <019e01d3b6ef$dabf85a0$903e90e0$> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 19:49:41 +0100
Message-ID: <045201d3b7d7$62c2c6a0$284853e0$>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQEIMoBNTKxUFyiwPewe7+hKaBSxMgEkwS0fAWlcGwcBjXEOYKU+bEcw
Content-Language: de
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 18:49:45 -0000

One question coming up in my mind is against which criteria should such drafts be reviewed.
A YANG module has its review criteria defined in YANG RFCs.
However examples may be manifold and imperfect.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Watsen <>
> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:09 PM
> To: Mehmet Ersue <>om>; 'Martin Bjorklund' <mbj@tail-
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
> > I did not start review for netconf-event-notifications-08.
> >
> > Netconf co-chairs: Please clarify whether a review is required.
> What's in a YANG Doctor review?  Is it just syntax, or semantics too?
> If it includes semantics, then does that then entail needing to read the draft
> text as well, to determine if the YANG module expresses the correct
> semantics or find that the draft text is wrong?  Would it also extend to
> reviewing the examples in the draft, to further ensure that the semantics are
> understood correctly or, possibly, that there is an error in the example?
> Yes, I am aware that netconf-event-notifications does not define a YANG
> module, but it does have examples that for the YANG modules in the yang-
> push and subscriber-notifications drafts.  In that sense, I'm wondering if they
> need to be reviewed, or do we expect the YD reviewers of those other two
> drafts to look at this draft already?
> FWIW, I not talking about what might be found via validation.  I've already
> asked the authors to post a script that validates the 14 examples in this
> draft...
> K.