Re: [yang-doctors] [Pce] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-08

Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 28 March 2019 10:03 UTC

Return-Path: <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEE112026B; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:03:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 5iyINxt2U-oD; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:03:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it1-x133.google.com (mail-it1-x133.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE4FE120491; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it1-x133.google.com with SMTP id 139so5076213ita.4; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=BLvCTv+ibTOvO/iTr3lAEXZ1xGWSG424HscgkDeIy60=; b=vJYBxp18IQlbe5PQOobGxRHzeY6tmRjKogXwgc7npN+yB1i1PwrhhxkE2bfy/8c+oT URp4fM7GoeeMdEVX45oBtbd4RwD6exXG0bk5Baaqd4Dq+G2AsJACIphWxitk22NWiO9j CFLDP16Wzq3GJkFz9XugXgbvLU8NiT053RHY5KPDeVeOVqRag3uXKTyQyOUprtHoa9Ez Vq9kKSOR20Tkpm3+pUwy7YSF/XZ3HsJ+ZPZXA7aUWXTv3Mmk0gyJur2V2xmpMQZu0lgj 5/8ifM3dWzeeGjnQfY5LSYN+so7L5Ze4/UPQ8NOTikTI4n6G6GioL/GHmIjmUGQAK83v Yegw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=BLvCTv+ibTOvO/iTr3lAEXZ1xGWSG424HscgkDeIy60=; b=blulTc09d3Z/YDfmzA62k6iG7lCJup4dcQPwfJx419K0KGW0ITEOIbj4Yyt0NbkHfr 8zLa/GsaYGSPfyAbJHWnsxUl2ysVmESUXmYks0+aaylXtenOwIuL8W8nznQ56s4qrUjY 3ZjpVU6UrV0KNSyjFpMjQtRzLXOWfAj5mpf4ok+/bM1bM20UeilWwNXGIN3Dm5mm5Y7p 9xOE+UzJSsmeUJXvUCoG3gkdVH0YgGvt+b5FhvSEN0Wlz9/moIBWtCMrDJY1niSSVbIG maarj4KICFVvVk+cDFzZADAms50aM1x2uNhjNqLZApdtl2av6AMl4WkYyJ/a4Wdlev36 BAUw==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW2PWp/pscUOrhJbFeJ+IwW3otPTdrctAPmfWnLhmz+Q0EG/S1o DrXnVqYXu90uu1UtBZSk+kz1xYQDHlq7AhcRyaU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxUkws/pBeQ8LbQA2+Y3Z6OpTF24RaJiX3mqda9BV8GFsW8gn57FWJ99s7wiaJM4rcNibS6QUKVFQIMcqFihZE=
X-Received: by 2002:a24:3990:: with SMTP id l138mr7148270ita.67.1553767397053; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 03:03:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <00d801d4e3d2$0408a620$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <20190326.141608.1265169009050218055.mbj@tail-f.com> <CAB75xn5d=FTid6uCM8byFPGWUj+gQK4HC942DZf273K-LyhSig@mail.gmail.com> <20190326.150053.1710533731743618728.mbj@tail-f.com> <CAB75xn7z8KMVTtBqDHQwp6nx92xrHaJBeCgC=RH+hkEg_qZx8A@mail.gmail.com> <00ae01d4e3f9$c54e6c80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <CAB75xn7uYRbZh=rHQnJ5odwu8UKZ=mEGcT3U7+UcLz4Da6++eA@mail.gmail.com> <01c401d4e4c4$e73acb60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <01c401d4e4c4$e73acb60$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
From: Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 11:02:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAB75xn7x9gAHS3m++EMRmS8UDx6OptBuXAHj=3uMn9sW_M_jAw@mail.gmail.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang.all@ietf.org>, "pce@ietf.org" <pce@ietf.org>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c3dbf2058524a96c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/ehG6J5BUVBkG1pXS5qvcvfXMLuE>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [Pce] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-08
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 10:03:34 -0000

Hi Tom,

Apologies, I misunderstood your comment on references. The [] would be
removed.
Who knew updating and compiling yang module while sitting in a WG session
is not good :)
Will make an update SOON fixing these!

Thanks again for all your effort in keeping yang drafts in good condition!

Regards,
Dhruv




On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:48 PM tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dhruv Dhody" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:35 PM
>
> Done and a new version is posted.
>
> <tp>
>
> The prefixes look good and the line lengths I think are ok - I make it
> 81 characters including the left margin spaces -  but ...
>
> in -10 you had
> "   import ietf-te-types {   prefix "te-types";  reference
>        "I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-types: Traffic Engineering Common YANG
>        Types";  "
> which looks ok
>
> in -11 you have
>   import ietf-te-types {     prefix te-types;     reference
>       "[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-types]: Traffic Engineering Common YANG
>        Types";
> which does not look ok to me
>
> Recall that a YANG module is plain text so there cannot be any XML/HTML
> style references/links and that
>      [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-types]:
> looks to me as if it has XML underpinning it which is not ok in a YANG
> module
>
> And this has happened in 16 places.
>
> Also, IANA Considerations does not register
>
>    URI:  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pcep-stats
>
> Security Considerations talks of a YANG module when the I-D has two,
> giving the flavour, as with the IANA Considerations, that the second
> module, pcep-stats, has not really been considered.  Since it is
> statistics, I imagine that there are no sensitive objects there, in
> which case I would add a sentence to spell that out.
>
> And something new
> /Segement Routing /Segment Routing /
>
> Tom Petch
>
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 18:34, tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
>
> > Dhruv
> >
> > I commented up thread that the prefixes used in this I-D were not the
> > ones that appear in the imported modules and said I thought that that
> > was discouraged but ok. Checking RFC8407, it says
> >
> >    o  The proper module prefix MUST be used for all identifiers
> imported
> >       from other modules.
> >
> > It is a MUST not a SHOULD so I believe that you must bring those
> > prefixes in line for key-chain, tls-client, tls-server.  YANG allows
> it,
> > YANG guidelines does not.
> >
> > Tom Petch
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dhruv Dhody" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 2:38 PM
> >
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > The newer version of pyang worked! Thanks for your help!
> >
> > I found the full tree useful when I am searching for a leaf in the
> > yang models and understand how it fits in the overall tree. Thus I see
> > value in both. We can also consider if we should also update 5.2-5.6
> > additionally.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Dhruv
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:00 PM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Dhruv Dhody <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Mahesh, Tom,
> > > >
> > > > Got it, will make the necessary change soon.
> > > >
> > > > Where I need help is the tree creation, even though I use
> > > > '--tree-line-length' I faced the issue with overrunning the 80
> > > > characters.
> > > >
> > > > pyang --ietf -f tree --tree-line-length=68 --tree-depth=10
> > > > ietf-pcep@2019-03-24.yang --ietf >ietf-pcep.tree
> > >
> > > Have you tried using pyang 1.7.8?  When I run that the tree seems to
> > > fit the line lengths.
> > >
> > > > That made me pick a shorter prefix, but happy to learn if there is
> a
> > > > better way out there!
> > >
> > > Personally, I'm not too fond of very large tree diagrams.  I prefer
> to
> > > split them into smaller diagrams.  So I like your overview diagram
> in
> > > section 5.1.  I would then probably add a small diagram in each of
> the
> > > section 5.2-5.6, and remove secion 5.7 completely.  But this is just
> > > my personal preference!
> > >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Dhruv
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:16 PM Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On the question of prefix, where I an interested in the
> opinion
> > of a
> > > > > > YANG
> > > > > > Doctor, you use the single letter 'p' and say that a longer
> > prefix gives
> > > > > > you line length problems.  YANG does allow statements to span
> > lines, as
> > > > > > happens in almost every TEAS module so for me that is not a
> very
> > good
> > > > > > reason; I would prefer something of two characters or more.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I note that IANA Considerations says
> > > > > >        Prefix:       pcep
> > > > > > which would be my first choice even if I then have to span
> > lines.
> > > > >
> > > > > I strongly agree.  Since the prefix is actually part of the IANA
> > > > > registry and needs to be unique, I think you should use a longer
> > > > > prefix.  "pcep" seems reasonable.  If you run into line length
> > > > > problems, I'll be glad to help you fix them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Before this document goes to the RFC editor, I suggest you run
> the
> > > > > tool:
> > > > >
> > > > >    pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 <FILE>
> > > > >
> > > > > on these modules, in order to get them formatted consistently
> with
> > the
> > > > > rest of the IETF modules.
> > > > >
> > > > > > You import the module key-chain but you do not use the prefix
> > that it
> > > > > > defines, namely key-chain; not forbidden but not recommended
> > practice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Likewise tls-client should be tlsc and tls-server tlss.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Security and IANA Considerations deal with
> > > > > >        Name:         ietf-pcep
> > > > > > What about
> > > > > >    module ietf-pcep-stats {
> > > > > > which I think needs separate coverage, a separate section, in
> > Security
> > > > > > and must be covered in IANA Considerations.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem with
> > > > > > "I-D.ietf-pce-association-group: PCEP Extensions for ...
> > > > > > as a reference is that when it appears in the text of the I-D,
> > then it
> > > > > > is as
> > > > > >  [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group]
> > > > > > i.e. a XML/HTML type anchor which is picked up by tools so the
> > RFC
> > > > > > Editor cannot miss it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When it appears in the YANG module, it must be plain text as
> in
> > > > > >        "I-D.ietf-pce-association-group: PCEP Extensions for
> ....
> > > > > > so the tools cannot pick it up, it must be spotted by eye and
> so
> > might
> > > > > > be missed.  Hence I suggest using
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "RFC YYYY - PCEP Extensions for
> > > > > >        Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs";
> > > > > >
> > > > > > with a note to the RFC Editor asking them to replace YYYY with
> > the RFC
> > > > > > number assigned to I-D.ietf-pce-association-group
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Likewise RFC ZZZZ for
> > > > > >        "I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing: PCEP Extensions for
> > Segment
> > > > > > and so on for the others (of which there are several)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The RFC Editor is ok, likes even, all the notes thereon to
> > appear once
> > > > > > at the start of the I-D.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So my previous comment was that using XXXX for multiple I-Ds
> was
> > > > > > confusing but I meant to use YYYY ZZZZ, with an RFC Editor
> Note
> > for
> > > > > > each, and not to use the I-D name.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > HTH
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom Petch
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Dhruv Dhody" <dhruv.ietf@gmail.com>
> > > > > > To: "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Cc: <draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang.all@ietf.org>;
> > <yang-doctors@ietf.org>;
> > > > > > <pce@ietf.org>
> > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 9:07 PM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Pce] Yangdoctors early review of
> > > > > > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-08
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mahesh,
> <snip>
>
>