Hi, Thank you for your review. Comments inline.
[email protected] wrote: > Hi members, > > I comment on that draft: > > * Instead of "it is often necessary that an existing module (or a set of > modules) is added to the data model starting at a non-root location", this > would read better: "it is often necessary that an existing module (or a set > of modules) be added to the data model at locations other than the root." > (Section 1) Ok, fixed. > * 'The "mount-point" statement MUST NOT be used in a YANG version 1 module' > Why this documents keeps YANG 1 off from its scope? (Section 3.1) The reason for this is that otherwise it is not possible to invoke mounted RPC operations, and receive mounted notifications. I have clarified this in the text. > * 'Specifically, a server that doesn?t support the NMDA, MAY implement > revision 2016-06-21 of "ietf-yang-library" [RFC7950] under a mount point' > [RFC7895] defines "ietf-yang-library", not [RFC7950] (Section 6) Fixed. > * Why not "Tree Diagram" instead of "Data Model"? The wording has become a > Best Practice (Section 8) I don't think I have seen "Tree Diagram" as the title of such a section. See e.g. RFC 8344. > * Idem, "This document...has the following diagram" captures better the Best > Practice than "This document...has the following structure" (Section 8) The full text is: This document defines the YANG 1.1 module [RFC7950] "ietf-yang-schema-mount", which has the following structure: it says that the *module* has a structure. > * Same remark on restricting to YANG 1.1: "The ?mount-point? statement MUST > NOT be used in a YANG version 1 module, neither explicitly nor via a ?uses? > statement (description of the extension "mount-point") See above. > * Should this sentence refers only to [RFC6020]? "This document registers a > YANG module in the YANG Module Names registry [RFC6020]" (Section 10) This is correct. > * The document cites /schema-mounts as "The schema defined by this state data > provides detailed information about a server implementation may help an > attacker identify the server capabilities and server implementations with > known bugs" I think this section should warn also on: > ** Section 2.1.2 and 4 of [RFC7895] (the list 'module' contains the leaf > 'schema': from which anyone may retrieve a YANG module) > ** Section 3 of [RFC6022] (it defines the RPC 'get-schema'; with which > anyone may get a YANG module) > ** and Section 5 of [RFC8341] (reminding administrators to set user rights > accordingly, and giving their defaults values). There is an ongoing discussion about adding text re. mounted modules and how NACM is used to protect them. I think this needs to be handled in a generic way, rather than listing some mounted modules. /martin > > Regards, > Ariel > > [RFC6020] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020 > [RFC7895] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7895 > [RFC7950] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950 > [RFC8341] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8341 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
