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

"Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com> Tue, 13 March 2018 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <mersue@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 A1B31124B0A for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:10:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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_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 rHTkX494y9DT for <yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wr0-x236.google.com (mail-wr0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c0c::236]) (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 36B9B120724 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wr0-x236.google.com with SMTP id f14so23731183wre.8 for <yang-doctors@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:10:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=Rtsre0F4dKIBfp4Pg3ZHyX5E+QtOzjd7kTix6FdcsBM=; b=M/ywEeXx8nAb/iJFDWSYs8Bgkn19+kg53qHAHYnaEXb0Sb23fEuhPMaqxQZaxoPDnl VD3i519EdWprPUAbQunkcTGRUGwBqj/Zp7KUW5g//VWkwbLWW6Xi7Cd2ucRQAsoNlCsU 9NLheNWspVvMjzN1XxDwJxnS0wjiJyPzpctIhV++doX4blvL3b8sosPxxatvX60eGyvI S8RXDay+4ZwUsFapWiCsPEZ6NPVUGx7ZkF+r/+UCMg+G/kB3RLeL14nDmUAjvC/9RX4a mVEJPrx4n4Hw93G/YW8o8OdXnRMOiRiG18ZhGz5z08eCejKOHfIFGKTeFaSloxn8piPg k3Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; 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=Rtsre0F4dKIBfp4Pg3ZHyX5E+QtOzjd7kTix6FdcsBM=; b=QMs8hJXv31nPRuqm6unLCt8vFJayDpccwPqQv33suwyuy78mdhxSA05KpYITVnwpny /Z1IXZUa8i2CgexTMUQiRN5jhGYGfU1a4uC4pp5+9yJoGKq60oJw4iTEmNg2het7RC80 VLmY4dOg82Q092YcpGJhAvYnlWXtsoYIACvh90PQSs59Irz8EViPmtRY6hVC6IHEoUJ9 BSJwpM5mLt34xtnVrxf97sNbzY32TzPuAyK/kPSCV77ZNGpjgjqToHQt8ljviOLmhuRQ Voy0kea2xWmTaypBpH3WZYIG99+03O4kAXZ/Wl9s/rp5S85x0BZvjBMLG+GCSMFVwHcx 5b5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AElRT7E7togXlSlD6/ZJyq8eklANw32KFcuH3x5FYAxvKUXLMYbeRM2T O9jpjd6n4J4p+ngXHtbp8Pg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELti1VHDHLehLO4H5C7OdPoHJ+6yqIAxNmOcd0sorkikoIdoedQBRB0E88Ju7WBiun2Qs14IjA==
X-Received: by 10.80.213.150 with SMTP id v22mr1298668edi.58.1520953854731; Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from DESKTOPFLHJVQJ ([2001:16b8:2d51:1300:d5c1:737f:3f9a:c7cf]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t20sm407919edd.87.2018.03.13.08.10.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 13 Mar 2018 08:10:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>
To: "'Martin Bjorklund'" <mbj@tail-f.com>, <bclaise@cisco.com>
Cc: <kwatsen@juniper.net>, <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "'Ignas Bagdonas'" <ibagdona.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <045201d3b7d7$62c2c6a0$284853e0$@gmail.com> <25C4AC06-F4CB-4303-B19C-CA7BBFEBACD8@juniper.net> <81dbd2c7-2962-12f0-0f58-81a5fbac648f@cisco.com> <20180313.092218.1630545026391500372.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180313.092218.1630545026391500372.mbj@tail-f.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 16:10:52 +0100
Message-ID: <007301d3badd$7b300640$719012c0$@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0
Thread-Index: AQGQlU7ZQXCDoJxBNVGVNAj3Y/rKIgKALPjZAnnTfy0CbqU1lqQZSqEA
Content-Language: de
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/iHn0QSwwv9NFRbKiCAw62qDkbMQ>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] YD review and yang-push and friends
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Tue, 13 Mar 2018 15:10:59 -0000

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 <mbj@tail-f.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 9:22 AM
> To: bclaise@cisco.com
> Cc: kwatsen@juniper.net; mersue@gmail.com; yang-doctors@ietf.org
> Subject: 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>om>; '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
> >