---- Original Message ----- From: "Mach Chen" <mach.c...@huawei.com> To: "Alissa Cooper" <ali...@cooperw.in>; "The IESG" <i...@ietf.org> Cc: <i2rs@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org>; <i2rs-cha...@ietf.org>; <sha...@ndzh.com> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:23 AM
> Hi Alissa, > > Thanks for your comments! > > Please see my responses inline... > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:10 PM > > To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org> > > Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org; i2rs-cha...@ietf.org; > > sha...@ndzh.com > > Subject: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: > > (with COMMENT) > > > > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: No Objection > > > > 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-rib-data-model/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Sec 1.2: > > > > "YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module, > > and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module > > structure." > > > > This document does not seem like an appropriate place to have normative > > guidance about this. And if this sentence is removed, I don't see the point of > > including Section 1.2 otherwise. This would also imply deleting the reference to > > I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams. > > This results from a YANG doctor review. I saw it also occurs in other published documents. I personally think it's no harm to keep it, how do you think? Mach I think that this is very odd. YANG guidelines rfc6087bis says " YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module, and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module structure. Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]. " which I think is the correct guidance in the correct place. A quick look at the recently published RFC8343, RFC8344, RFC8345, RFC8346 contain no text of the kind you suggest so if it occurs in other I-D, then I would regard those other I-D as being in error. If I look back at a thread from Ebben for a yang doctor review of an earlier version of this I-D, the text I see proposed is " > A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in > this document. The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is > defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]. " which I think is rather different. Tom Petch (not a YANG doctor) > > > > Sec 2.1: Again here I'm confused about the use of normative language. Why do > > you need to specify normative requirements for what this very document is > > specifying? Or are these supposed to be requirements on implementations? > > OK, how about this: > > "...a RIB data model needs to specify a way for an external entity to learn about the functional capabilities of a network device." And > > " The RIB data model needs a way to expose the nexthop chaining capability supported by a given network device." > > > > > Sec 2.5: s/causes/caused/ > > Done > > The above updates will be reelected in version-11. > > Thanks, > Mach > > _______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list i2rs@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
