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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Fine, but what about the examples that are contained within a draft that defines the YANG module.  Do we expect YANG Doctors to review the examples or not?   What I'm looking for is a definition of what all a YANG Doctor looks at, if anything less than the entire draft.  Can the YANG Doctor function be automated, or is function more than validators could ever hope to do?

K.

=====

As YANG secretary I have an issue with reviewing draft which do not include YANG modules.

> A YANG module has its review criteria defined in YANG RFCs.
> However examples may be manifold and imperfect.

If the group decides to review such documents the review criteria needs to be defined first.

Cheers,
Mehmet

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:22 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
> 
> Benoit Claise <[e-mail]> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__datatracker.ietf.org_doc_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc6087bis_&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=9NbPiPD-CVHGtQCZXZJQf-eRBVyomnwn2DvqhWonaBc&s=a93P1wWzQy2YYDl9KQTai1EbHdIRYwH_EwYv-TcUYjU&e=. 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__trac.ietf.org_trac_ops_wiki_YANGDoctorsFAQ&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=9NbPiPD-CVHGtQCZXZJQf-eRBVyomnwn2DvqhWonaBc&s=s7Yh35PaMXizxNvkc0_aLaDV1FDcJgoj2_IuPiEoRlc&e=.
> > >
> > > """
> > >
> > > 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 <[e-mail]>
> > >> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 6:09 PM
> > >> To: Mehmet Ersue <[e-mail]>; 'Martin Bjorklund'
> <mbj@tail-
> > >> f.com>
> > >> Cc: [e-mail]
> > >> 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
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_yang-2Ddoctors&d=DwIFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=9NbPiPD-CVHGtQCZXZJQf-eRBVyomnwn2DvqhWonaBc&s=3pky8v7zSfdi3HNvorvvT3Y60l7ZxfBUm6K8ulTV3r8&e=
> >