On 1/20/2017 7:13 AM, Carl Moberg (camoberg) wrote:
Inline below:
On Jan 19, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Benoit Claise (bclaise) <[email protected]> wrote:
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.
I have re-reviewed the current (-08) draft to follow up on my remarks from
-01. The only remark that has not been addressed in the draft is the following:
“”"
1. All data definitions are optional configuration (e.g. no config false,
default values or mandatory statements). This seems to open up for many odd
combinations of e.g. existing and non-existing leafs in node, link, and
termination-points. This is also true for the notifications. Is this by design
or something that needs additional work?
“””
The response from the authors (through Alex Clemm) during the first review
was that:
“”"
This is actually by design, as there is always the issue for leaving
flexibility for implementations (I know, this flexibility can be at odds with
ease-of-use) but we shall review this.
“””
I agree that this is a reasonable tradeoff, and am fine with leaving it as is.
Thanks Carl.
Authors, some text clarifying that all data definitions are optional
configuration (e.g. no config false, default values or mandatory
statements) and stressing that this is per design would be an excellent
addition to the draft.
Regards, Benoit
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
