On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:49:32PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote: > > This is a notice to start a NETMOD WG last call for the document "Defining > and Using Metadata with YANG": > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01 > > Please indicate your support by Monday June 29, 2015 at 9PM EST.
Hi, I have reviewed draft-ietf-netmod-yang-metadata-01 and I have a couple of comments. - I would prefer if the terminology would be streamlined. Currently, the I-D sometimes uses "metadata", sometimes "annotation", sometimes "metadata annotation". If these terms all mean the same, then I suggest we settle on a single term. Furthermore, the YANG statement 'annotation' is defined in the module 'ietf-metadata'. I am not sure whether there is a specific reasoning behind this. - In order to group YANG modules together that define YANG extensions and nothing else, does it make sense to call them 'ietf-yang-<xxx>'? - I am having problems with the examples presented in the Introduction. The 'deactivating a subtree' annotation requires a negotiation mechanism to be robust. The usage of attributes in the <edit-config> is more a protocol specification detail. Do you suggest that annotations would be used to define them? If so, how? I think there needs to be text in section 1 that distinsuishes between annotations that are harmless (because they can be ignored) and annotations that require annotation negotiation in order to be used. - Why is the type statement optional for annotations? This seems to be inconsistent with the YANG rules. - The definition of 'inactive' on page 6 is kind of confusing. The text says the presence of the annotation deactives a data node. If so, why is the type of the annotation a boolean? - The text about advertisements is not clear. I think a server advertising annotation A not only commits to comply to this I-D but also to the semantics of the annotations A. I note that there is no mechanism to scope annotations - a server either support annotations for all data models it implements or none. Is this correct? Furthermore, if a module M defines annotation A and it contains also other definitions, then I can't implement M without implementing A system wide? That is, it is advisable to define annotations in their own separate modules in order to preserve flexibility, no? - Does the presence of an annotation impact the JSON encoding rules that control when a module name prefix is needed or not? I assume the answer is 'no' but it is not clear from the text. - s/whose the/whose/ - bump the copyright year to 2015 /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <http://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
