Tom - thank you for your continued review of this work! Sue Hares
-----Original Message----- From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 AM To: Alissa Cooper; Mach Chen Cc: IESG; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT) Mach One additional thought on tree diagrams. This is now RFC8340 and YANG guidelines 6087bis section 3.4 says " If YANG tree diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be included in the document. " whereas you currently have it as a Normative Reference (well, perhaps two related thoughts:-( Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alissa Cooper" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:50 PM > On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Mach Chen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Tom, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:42 PM >> To: Mach Chen <[email protected]>; Alissa Cooper >> <[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data- >> model-10: (with COMMENT) >> >> ---- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mach Chen" <[email protected]> >> To: "Alissa Cooper" <[email protected]>; "The IESG" <[email protected]> >> Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; >> <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:23 AM >> >>> Hi Alissa, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments! >>> >>> Please see my responses inline... >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: i2rs [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper >>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:10 PM >>>> To: The IESG <[email protected]> >>>> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; >> [email protected]; >>>> [email protected] >>>> 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. > > Indeed, my fault, I just checked Ebben's suggestion, it's as above quoted. > > To Alissa: > If change to following text, is it OK for you? > > "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].” Yes, thanks. Alissa > > > Best regards, > Mach >> >> 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 [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
