Clyde Sorry for being unclear
OLD This module imports typedefs from [RFC6021], [RFC7223], groupings from [RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx], and it references [RFC5424], [RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]. NEW This module imports typedefs from [RFC6021], [RFC7223], groupings from [RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx], and it references [RFC5424], [RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], [RFC5848], and [Std-1003.1-2008]. would satisfy me. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 5:05 PM > Tom, > > This does not satisfy the reference requirement? > > leaf pattern-match { > if-feature select-match; > type string; > description > "This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression > string that can be used to select a syslog message for > logging. The match is performed on the SYSLOG-MSG field."; > reference > "RFC 5424: The Syslog Protocol > Std-1003.1-2008 Regular Expressions"; > } > > Please help me understand what more you want. > > Thanks, > > Clyde > > On 12/14/17, 3:55 AM, "t.petch" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Clyde > > A quick glance at -18 shows that there is now a Normative Reference for > Posix - good- but I do not see it referenced - not so good:-( > > I think that there needs to be a reference in 4.1 > > Tom Petch > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <[email protected]> > To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected]>; "Kent Watsen" > <[email protected]>; "t.petch" <[email protected]>; > <[email protected]> > Cc: <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:26 PM > Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup > issues -references > > > > Benoit, > > > > There were approximately 24 changes requested from you, Kent, Robert > Wilton, and Tom Petch. I have made approximately half of them and will > try to finish another revision of the draft by Friday. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Clyde > > > > On 9/27/17, 3:24 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Clyde, > > > > Do you know your next step to progress this document? > > > > Regards, Benoit > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
