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

Benoit Claise <> Tue, 13 March 2018 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CC61270A7 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:05:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kEd_pdVxxY7r for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:05:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67AA3126CB6 for <>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 01:05:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3265; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1520928320; x=1522137920; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=tgDvbA4C/cgfCPrliWAsgdB1fwrj3nWZ3cJ/u0pD6ak=; b=XK3NxhPVVS8iLQ5AVhiVJ+dWL9oqB+ZBNSRPOk6NtDyMvCacCWxnPE5J ria6HpgIVvaDPFzdJrpEYIMNZ2WgMK+8IMKoKx2MheCE4jHQSaJWOjJTL eUr5wNUY5HVTD5YbSZw0b8SurJ6UR+3Y3CrkchbYb6IDNcSnvLdNMxDNG Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CVAQBEhada/xbLJq1dGQEBAQEBAQEBA?= =?us-ascii?q?QEBAQcBAQEBAYQ1byiDUIsQjlspgRaHJI0NghUKGAuFAgKDPjYWAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CayeFIwEBAQMBAQEhDwEFNgsFBwQLDgMBAwEBAwImAgIhBiIGCAYBDAYCAQEQh?= =?us-ascii?q?GwDDQgPqzWCJoRvgjUNgTCCFYENhCiEBIFmKQyCeYJqRAEBAwGBbYMIgkIgBIY?= =?us-ascii?q?ClCMxCYZEhi47gzAHgWOENYJzIoU0iXk5VD+GA4EsJQ4jgVIzGggbFTqCQwmCK?= =?us-ascii?q?RyBej83jCcsghsBAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.47,464,1515456000"; d="scan'208";a="2531820"
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Mar 2018 08:05:16 +0000
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2D85G5p000834; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:05:16 GMT
To: Kent Watsen <>, Mehmet Ersue <>, "'Martin Bjorklund'" <>
Cc: "" <>
References: <> <> <019e01d3b6ef$dabf85a0$903e90e0$> <> <045201d3b7d7$62c2c6a0$284853e0$> <>
From: Benoit Claise <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 09:05:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:05:22 -0000

Why not review the document, even if there is no YANG module, and see if 
there is something to pay attention to? The examples, for example, are 
important to review and validate.

Regards, B.

> Now that the YD page has been restored, here's what it says:
> """
> What to look for during a review
> The most important item is to give the AD a sense of how important it is that they pay attention to the document.
> For YANG reviews the YANG Doctors will apply the RFC6087bis document on the Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents ​ The YANG language syntax and semantics should be analyzed. The compliance with ​Network Management Datastore Architecture should to be ensured (see also ​NMDA guidelines).
> Review Information
> Under some circumstances, the YANG doctors might discover open issues or provide feedback worth documenting for the larger community. While the NETMOD WG still work on RFC6087bis, updating this document is preferred. If the topic is not appropriate for the RFC6087bis or if RFC6087bis has already been published, then this must be documented on the YANG questions/answers WIKI
> """
> The scope of the YD's review is unclear.
> K.
> ===== original message =====
> 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.
> Cheers,
> Mehmet
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kent Watsen <>
>> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:09 PM
>> To: Mehmet Ersue <>; '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.
> _______________________________________________
> yang-doctors mailing list