Benoit: I would agree that you need a discuss regarding the security considerations in the draft. However, I disagree that the security considerations should align with https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines, as mentioned by others.
I believe that the security considerations should have additional fields. I have written the draft-hares-i2rs-yang-sec-consider-00.txt in order to start a conversation regarding this point. I would appreciate you holding the DISCUSS until we reach agreement on this point. You can reference the draft at: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hares-i2rs-yang-sec-consider/ Sue -----Original Message----- From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Benoit Claise Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2017 6:24 AM To: The IESG Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: [i2rs] Benoit Claise's Discuss on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology-08: Discuss When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- DISCUSS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. The examples. In the AUTH48 for the RESTCONF RFC, the example YANG module discussion came up (again). And the examples in draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-l3-topology were also discussed. Here is the feedback from one YANG doctor, from a couple of days ago. Look at this: module example-ietf-ospf-topology { ... namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:example-ietf-ospf-topology"; ... description "This module defines a model for OSPF network topologies. Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as authors of the code. They are using the IANA-controlled namespace w/o registering it. This module *really* looks like a proper normative module, rather than an example. They went to far in trying to mimic a real module. It is clear that we need more guidelines in 6087 for how to write example modules. I was going to ask if this module passed YANG doctor review - then I checked and saw that version -02 was reviewed, which didn't include this example. How should we (the YANG doctors) handle such a case? In this case they should: 1. change the name to example-ospf-topology 2. change the namespace to urn:example:ospf-topology 3. remove the top-level statements: organization, contact, revision 4. change the top-level description to what the text in the draft says: description "This module is intended as an example for how the Layer 3 Unicast topology model can be extended to cover OSFP topologies."; (same for the other example module) As I mentioned to the authors, respective chairs and AD already, we should follow the decision in this NETMOD email thread https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17428.html This will hopefully resolve fast. Once settled, the examples should be updated. 2. The security considerations should be better aligned with https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines, as mentioned by others. 3. Carl Moberg, as YANG doctor, reviewed v1 of the draft. https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yang-doctors/current/msg00031.html I'm waiting for final blessing on v8 any time soon. Hence this late DISCUSS. 4. leaf-list router-id { type inet:ip-address; description "Router-id for the node"; } We don't want to wait for https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-rtgwg-routing-types-00 (btw, we should expedite this publication), but any good reason why this is aligned with its definition? typedef router-id { type yang:dotted-quad; description "A 32-bit number in the dotted quad format assigned to each router. This number uniquely identifies the router within an Autonomous System."; } ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - YANG definition "YANG: A data definition language for NETCONF" I would use: YANG is a data modeling language used to model configuration data, state data, Remote Procedure Calls, and notifications for network management protocols [RFC7950] - There are multiple slightly different definitions of the datastore in the different RFCs. Let's not add to the confusion. Pick one (RFC6241 should be the latest one) and mention the reference. - Instead of: Brackets enclose list keys, "rw" means configuration, "ro" operational state data, "?" designates optional nodes, "*" designates nodes that can have multiple instances. Parantheses enclose choice and case nodes. Use the cut/paste from RFC8022 and https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-09] o Brackets "[" and "]" enclose list keys. o Curly braces "{" and "}" contain names of optional features that make the corresponding node conditional. o Abbreviations before data node names: "rw" means configuration (read-write), "ro" state data (read-only), "-x" RPC operations or actions, and "-n" notifications. o Symbols after data node names: "?" means an optional node, "!" a container with presence, and "*" denotes a "list" or "leaf-list". o Parentheses enclose choice and case nodes, and case nodes are also marked with a colon (":"). o Ellipsis ("...") stands for contents of subtrees that are not shown. Btw, no need to repeat this convention in section 6.1.1 and 6.2.1 - I agree with Suresh: "OSPF and IS-IS are used later in the document as examples but this section (especially Figure 1) seems to treat them as more than examples" Either modify figure 1, or even better, stress in section 3 that ospf-topology and isis-topology are examples, and defined as such in this document - section 7 OLD: The moodel defines NEW: The model defines _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
