Dear all,
On this topic, we tried to have a consistent section for all recently
published RFCs.
1.x <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8343#section-1.3>. Tree Diagrams
Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
[RFC8340 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8340>].
Ex: rfc8343
Regards, Benoit
Hi Tom,
Thanks for your comments!
It will be fixed in the upcoming version-11.
Best regards,
Mach
-----Original Message-----
From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 PM
To: Alissa Cooper <ali...@cooperw.in>; Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com>
Cc: IESG <i...@ietf.org>; i2rs@ietf.org;
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org;
i2rs-cha...@ietf.org; sha...@ndzh.com
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" <ali...@cooperw.in>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:50 PM
On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com> wrote:
Hi Tom,
-----Original Message-----
From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:42 PM
To: Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com>; 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
Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-
model-10: (with COMMENT)
---- 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.
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
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
