Hi Tom, Thanks for your comments!
It will be fixed in the upcoming version-11. Best regards, Mach > -----Original Message----- > From: t.petch [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 PM > To: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]>; Mach Chen <[email protected]> > Cc: IESG <[email protected]>; [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
