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

Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com> wrote:
> 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.

Yes, but is this something for the YANG doctors in general?

In this particular case, it doesn't really matter, since most likely
several YDs will review the document anyway.

/martin

> 
> 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
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis/. 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
> > https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/YANGDoctorsFAQ.
> >
> > """
> >
> > 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 <kwatsen@juniper.net>
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:09 PM
> >> To: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>; 'Martin Bjorklund' <mbj@tail-
> >> f.com>
> >> Cc: yang-doctors@ietf.org
> >> 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
> > yang-doctors@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors
> 