Hi Balazs,
> Have the YANG modules been validated and tested for formatting?
>
> (i.e., pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 filename)
>
> BALAZS: yes. With pyang offline and yangvalidator.com
Okay.
> Have the examples in the draft validated against the YANG module?
>
> BALAZS: Only manually. How do you validate samples conforming to a yang data
> structure ?
Hmmm, seeing that the examples are still not valid, here goes:
Until such time as tools support validating structure-data-ext,
one can rewrite the YANG module via s/sx:structure/container/
and perform the validation against the resulting YANG module.
> Please review the Normative/Informative status of the references.
>
> Not looking carefully, but RFCs 2119 and 8174 should be Normative,
>
> and I think RFCs 3688 and 6020 should be Informative, right?
>
> BALAZS: OK, changed in rev 08
Did you check all the other references too? (I’m trying to save having to do
another roundtrip when I do the shepherd writeup...)
> All of the “import” statements in the YANG module are missing a
>
> “reference” statement.
>
> BALAZS:
>
> Added:
>
> rfc6991 for types added.
>
> Already present:
>
> rfc8342 for datastores
>
> ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext for ietf-yang-structure-ext
Again, all the “import” statements in the YANG module are missing a “reference”
statement.
> Please add a paragraph to Section 5.2 preceding the YANG module
>
> indicating all the aforementioned Normative references.
>
> BALAZS: OK, I did it, but
>
> this is not what is required by
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.9.
>
> I also see no value in this statement.
I the "reference” statements mentioned above had been added, then s3.9 applies.
> The copyright in the YANG module needs to be 2020 (not 2019)
>
> BALAZS: OK
>
>
>
> Please ensure a blank line between paragraphs in the “description"
>
> statements.
>
> BALAZS: OK
>
>
>
> Please add a statement to the Introduction regarding why the module
>
> Isn’t compliant with NMDA.
>
> BALAZS: Sorry, don’t understand. Why is this not compliant with NMDA ?
>
> IMHO it is NMDA compliant, or rather it has nothing to do with NDMA.
Either way but, per https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.5, the
statement should be in the Introduction section.
> The tree diagram does not adhere to the syntax described in
>
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext.
>
> BALAZS: OK I try, but what actually is the problem? Any help would be really
> appreciated.
I was looking at the “+—rw”, which can’t be right because yang-data is not
“configuration”...
> Sadly
>
> pyang -p ../ietfYams ietf-yang-instance-data\@2020-03-06.yang -f tree
> --tree-print-yang-data --tree-print-yang-data
>
> doesn’t print out anything, so I am handcrafting.
`pyang` supports the old/RFC8040 “rc:yang-data” statement; it hasn’t been
updated to support the new "sx:structure” statement.
> I just updated pyang from git. Any idea why this doesn’t work for me?
>
> It would be good if YangValidator would print out the tree. At some point it
> did. Not now. :-(
First, use the s/sx:structure/container/ trick mentioned above.
Then s/+--rw/+—/.
Then review
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext-05#section-3 and
tweak accordingly until all is good.
> Please update the first sentence in Section 5.1 to also reference
> draft-ietf-netmod-yang-data-ext.
>
> BALZS: OK
>
>
>
> Please ensure that the planning-text version of the draft passes
>
> IDNITS (https://www6.ietf.org/tools/idnits) at the “verbose output”
>
> level and correct any issues found, or explain why they shouldn’t
>
> be corrected.
>
> BALAZS: OK, corrected
Thanks! (this is almost always the cause for needing another draft update when
doing the shepherd writeup)
NEW: looking at the new "format-version”, please add a pattern statement to
constrain the string values appropriately. Hint, it’s half a "date-and-time”
type...
Kent // contributor (and shepherd)
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
