I meant to say something about the .1 vs .2 difference. My comment assumes that it's supposed to be .1, but we of course should use whatever is correct.
I also don't know much about that standards body. K. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:08 PM > Hi Tom, > > Thanks. The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match' leaf > to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for S4.1 > to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a draft-level reference. and I am unfamiliar with that standards body so am looking for a little more. Is STD-nnnn always Posix or do we need to say Posix 1003 or Posix Std-1003 or is Std-1003 completely unrelated to Posix 1003? Is there a difference between Std-1003.1-2008 and Posix 1003.2 ie is the .1 or .2 significant? You want Std-1003.1; the description contains Posix 1003.2; the normative Reference is to Std-1003.1-2008. You pointed out that the Normative Reference is not used; well if we can sort out what the standard is and get the right label in Normative References then we can - must - include this in Section 4.1 which will resolve that comment of yours. The discussions last July had Clyde saying he wants Posix 1003.2 so if Std-1003 and Posix 1003 are the same but .1 and.2 are different, then you are asking for a semantic change against Clyde's wishes. I hope my confusion is sufficiently clear, at least to Clyde! Tom Petch > > I was going to point out the typo "the the" as well, but figured > that the RFC Editor would get it. > > K. // shepherd > > > -- > > Kent > > You flag Std-1003.1-2008 as listed as a normative reference but not used > anywhere in the document. In the Descriptions, but not in the s.4.1 > references, I see > > This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression ... > > twice, which may, or may not, relate to this issue. > > Back in July, clyde said > "I will insert a normative reference to POSIX 1003.2 in the next > revision of the draft." > > In a similar vein, RFC6991 appears in a reference statement but nowhere > else. > > As you point out, RFC6021 is referenced but is obsoleted by RFC6991 so > should not be. > > And in a slightly different vein, > > registry [RFC7895]/>. Following the format in [RFC7950]/>, the the > > looks odd for plain text and for the repetition of 'the'.. > > Tom Petch > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kent Watsen" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM > Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues > > > > Clyde, all, > > > > In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following > issues that I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent > to Benoit for AD review: > > > > > > 1. Idnits found the following: > > > > Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment > (--). > > > > ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the > longest one > > being 3 characters in excess of 72. > > > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021 (Obsoleted by RFC 6991) > > > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587 > > > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on line 359, but not > defined > > '[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]....' > > > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1406, but no > explicit > > reference was found in the text > > '[RFC7895] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG > Module L...' > > > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 1435, but no > explicit > > reference was found in the text > > '[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over > Secure Sh...' > > > > > > 2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang", which is missing > "@yyyy-mm-dd" in its name > > > > 3. neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with > ietf-syslog.yang. pyang says > > for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement "identity" must have > a "description" > > substatement. > > > > 4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint: > > - for both examples: Missing element's "namespace". (/config) > > - just removing the "<config>" element envelop resolves this > error. > > > > 5. the 2nd example uses IP address "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but this > SHOULD be a > > domain name (e.g., foo.example.com) > > > > 6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed in a > 'description' statement, > > there should be a 'reference' statement for that RFC. > > > > 7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate what they > point at, they now all > > just say "leafref". Did you do this on purpose, or are you using > a different tree > > output generator from -15? > > > > 8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it probably should > be informative. > > > > 9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference, but it is not > used anywhere in the document. > > > > 10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but it is not used > anywhere in the document. > > > > 11. the document fails to declare its normative references to > ietf-keystore and ietf-tls-client-server. > > Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx]" > references… > > > > 12. The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric. Either put > both registry insertions into > > subsections, or keep them both at the top-level… > > > > 13. reviewing the final document against my original YD review, I have > the following responses. Let's be sure to close out these items as > well. Ref: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11 > s-0gOfCe8NSE > > > > 1. ok > > 2. better > > 3. should be: s/the message/these messages/ [RFC Editor might've > caught this] > > 4. better > > 5. still feel the same way, but no biggee > > 6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when, and only > when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here." > > 7. fixed > > 8. fixed > > 9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't satisfying... > > 10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask wasn't among them > > 11. better > > 12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented too, right? > > 13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram Notation" > > 14. fixed > > 15. fixed > > 16. fixed > > 17. fine > > 18. still a weird line brake here. try putting the quoted string on > the next line. > > 19. fixed > > 20. fixed > > 21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines) > > 22. fine > > > > > > PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his AD review. > > > > Thanks, > > Kent // shepherd & yang doctor > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > > > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
