Hi Benoit, OK, will use you suggested text below.
Thanks, Mach From: Benoit Claise [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2018 10:08 PM To: Mach Chen <[email protected]>; t.petch <[email protected]>; Alissa Cooper <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; IESG <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT) 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:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 PM To: Alissa Cooper <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; Mach Chen <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: IESG <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:50 PM On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Mach Chen <[email protected]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]>; Alissa Cooper <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; The IESG <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> To: "Alissa Cooper" <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; "The IESG" <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>; <[email protected]><mailto:[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]><mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
_______________________________________________ i2rs mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
