Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06

"Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> Thu, 06 May 2021 02:44 UTC

Return-Path: <jaehoon.paul@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 EB48C3A2C5A; Wed, 5 May 2021 19:44:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.465
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HK_NAME_FM_MR_MRS=0.631, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 rqwZIrWUA6gp; Wed, 5 May 2021 19:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (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 0DC7D3A2C58; Wed, 5 May 2021 19:44:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id w15so5103611ljo.10; Wed, 05 May 2021 19:44:51 -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=YAg6UazbkF049GSAgnz++ECln2yDVQGi0EAyFCgLBvo=; b=B8D3ruXRIT5XcPfDpUYzUgrammkLohdQHZQx5Tna8sol3FvipgFYA8C7XVJZC87TfR W5cW6pa7zPWGanAJz7dRvBBeoSgr8KD3mgs3cxk+09Zh46ePyD89dH3O8ff4S65y4flO rIk2D57IUUTS3K0fSRRQYEh7xzW+FKsTlZoEyER8HAUOKgdtlq1Hk1nwcNKFifLfmMGp bfL9ClOnHUO6gCofWtq8ac3ka8ZWdFxPKnLlxPn4EvjXOFD9O7fhKQbrptKm1t070Lb3 GCEKR7KRoaYnIeWRrNZYrd+SV8dRT6DhsBVYc2qNbZaDjAZ09aQkKxfqaY38t/UfLHzc UHZA==
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=YAg6UazbkF049GSAgnz++ECln2yDVQGi0EAyFCgLBvo=; b=QvIN4S5agwbhWB34miIABexHPYCCnOfMUhMPZPKBlGyBhmQxtEg28sYL4x06zOChKE IX9dKDyTd4BX+xRoJUU9sMnudW69lAdW/j3aLMo0str2zOi51+f0afDBXBFyJsVt4Bkj B9JRQbElBslsse5wWqijck5QfEa1PTnfymxCiL02XPKM78qUN4tnSi0kQ3qaeMzATjPH wfPdl7Os7pa+M8OlLUWvwZ2ViPkfwcurRuSCxQ2CV1lD4Wt0Vs8jEn9E55BlpDLjs9Nt /2oP0RxmR4zIin6i/OZxK3Gwpcyw8NNmFfeX7R7motR/ruOq6HumRKpYZ1MeLMurrHd1 soVg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532oQhmQSSLF22+0YYCLQUHTrAykncHrYLPxGzm6gCx25F3W9pbI 2WXtZjxsIbJ/Oqnte+MHiYIBLkLjCoMa9qK/+8A=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwvMUzAdjjjpJhggloSa5BAGqgwH/p19ZyPkeADWlhMdQ02fhkF21eoXY83beTnNAjN8q0rK2aaO9HNDTheBPA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:9ad9:: with SMTP id p25mr1396089ljj.127.1620269089260; Wed, 05 May 2021 19:44:49 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <609276FB.1060508@btconnect.com>
In-Reply-To: <609276FB.1060508@btconnect.com>
From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2021 11:44:14 +0900
Message-ID: <CAPK2DezW5iwB2THXkpiaJoMHMriZ2f5VqV2sOCVLbBt3mxn5Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
Cc: "i2nsf@ietf.org" <i2nsf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model.all@ietf.org, Linda Dunbar <linda.dunbar@futurewei.com>, YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, Patrick Lingga <patricklink888@gmail.com>, skku-iotlab-members <skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000081877005c1a04bbd"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/qE5LdrhLewF4q0pwYS8gYdv0MCc>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
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, 06 May 2021 02:44:57 -0000

Hi Tom,
I will use your comments to synchronize all the five I2NSF YANG data model
drafts.

Thanks.

Best Regards,
Paul


On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 7:44 PM t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com> wrote:

> Paul
>
> Top posting since this is a more general response (and leaving in YANG
> doctors since I note that five different YANG doctors reviewed the five
> I-D and so might not see the issue that concerns me).
>
> As you have probably realised, I have now looked at the five YANG I-D of
> I2NSF and am concerned at the disparate approaches to the same topics
> that I think will confuse a user and, likely, induce mistakes.  I
> provided some detailed comments  in response to WG LC on
> capability-data-model but really it cuts across all five.  It may be
> that the inconsistenicies that I see can be justified but if so, then I
> think that the I-D may need some text to say so, to relate one I-D to
> another.
>
> The treatment of YANG identity for ICMP is to me a clear example.  I
> think that nsf-monitoring is good here, deriving icmpv4 and icmpv6 from
> icmp (and ipv4 and ipv6)
> while capability is not good having icmp (sic) and icmpv6 as two
> unrelated identity, no common base.
>
> But at a higher level it may be that capability has a better treatment
> where it has
>    base event; [from which is derived]
>      identity system-event-capability {
>      identity system-alarm-capability {
>
>    base system-event-capability;
>      identity access-violation {
>      identity configuration-change {
>
>    base system-alarm-capability;
>      identity memory-alarm {
>      identity cpu-alarm {
>      identity disk-alarm {
>      identity hardware-alarm {
>      identity interface-alarm {
>
> while nsf-monitoring has
>
>    base alarm-type;
>      identity mem-usage-alarm {
>      identity cpu-usage-alarm {
>      identity disk-usage-alarm {
>      identity hw-failure-alarm {
>      identity ifnet-state-alarm {
>
>    base event-type;
>      identity access-denied {
>      identity config-change {
>
> Different structure, different terminology, and these examples are quite
> close compared to some others.  I would expect at least the root of the
> identifier to be the same if not the whole identifier.
>
> What is missing, for me, is an underlying, high-level, information model
> to provide a consistent structure and a consistent terminology for the
> I2NSF YANG I-D.
>
> Tom Petch
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
> To: <tom petch>
> Cc: <Last Call>; <i2nsf@ietf.org>; <Andy Bierman>; <Yoav Nir>;
> <draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model.all@ietf.org>; <Linda
> Dunbar>; <Patrick Lingga>; <YANG Doctors>; <skku-iotlab-members>; <Mr.
> Jaehoon Paul Jeong>
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [I2nsf] [Last-Call] Yangdoctors last call review of
> draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-06
>
>
> > Hi Tom,
> > Patrick and I have addressed all your comments below with the
> following revision.
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-da
> ta-model-08
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-08>
> >
> > I attach our revision letter.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Paul
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 6:59 PM tom petch
> <daedulus@btconnect.com<mailto:daedulus@btconnect.com>> wrote:
> > Paul
> >
> > Some admin comments on -07; I think that you need to:
> >
> > - change the title in YANG revision reference
> >
> > - add to the I-D references
> > RFC959
> > RFC8632
> >
> > - shorten lines. There is a limit to line length in RFC as per the
> Style
> > Guide.  This is exceeded in the YANG where some of the path statements
> > take it over 80 while some of the examples are over 100.
> >
> > - add a reference for the import of
> > ietf-i2nsf-policy-rule-for-nsf
> >
> > HTH
> >
> > Tom Petcb
> >
> > On 01/04/2021 03:09, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong wrote:
> > > > Hi Andy, Linda, and Yoav,
> > > > Patrick and I have addressed all the comments from Andy.
> > > > Here is the revised draft -07:
> > ATT00001.txt 130 bytes
>