Hi Tom, Apologies, I misunderstood your comment on references. The [] would be removed. Who knew updating and compiling yang module while sitting in a WG session is not good :) Will make an update SOON fixing these!
Thanks again for all your effort in keeping yang drafts in good condition! Regards, Dhruv On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 6:48 PM tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dhruv Dhody" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 5:35 PM > > Done and a new version is posted. > > <tp> > > The prefixes look good and the line lengths I think are ok - I make it > 81 characters including the left margin spaces - but ... > > in -10 you had > " import ietf-te-types { prefix "te-types"; reference > "I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-types: Traffic Engineering Common YANG > Types"; " > which looks ok > > in -11 you have > import ietf-te-types { prefix te-types; reference > "[I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-types]: Traffic Engineering Common YANG > Types"; > which does not look ok to me > > Recall that a YANG module is plain text so there cannot be any XML/HTML > style references/links and that > [I-D.ietf-teas-yang-te-types]: > looks to me as if it has XML underpinning it which is not ok in a YANG > module > > And this has happened in 16 places. > > Also, IANA Considerations does not register > > URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-pcep-stats > > Security Considerations talks of a YANG module when the I-D has two, > giving the flavour, as with the IANA Considerations, that the second > module, pcep-stats, has not really been considered. Since it is > statistics, I imagine that there are no sensitive objects there, in > which case I would add a sentence to spell that out. > > And something new > /Segement Routing /Segment Routing / > > Tom Petch > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2019 at 18:34, tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dhruv > > > > I commented up thread that the prefixes used in this I-D were not the > > ones that appear in the imported modules and said I thought that that > > was discouraged but ok. Checking RFC8407, it says > > > > o The proper module prefix MUST be used for all identifiers > imported > > from other modules. > > > > It is a MUST not a SHOULD so I believe that you must bring those > > prefixes in line for key-chain, tls-client, tls-server. YANG allows > it, > > YANG guidelines does not. > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dhruv Dhody" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 2:38 PM > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > The newer version of pyang worked! Thanks for your help! > > > > I found the full tree useful when I am searching for a leaf in the > > yang models and understand how it fits in the overall tree. Thus I see > > value in both. We can also consider if we should also update 5.2-5.6 > > additionally. > > > > Thanks! > > Dhruv > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:00 PM Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Dhruv Dhody <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Mahesh, Tom, > > > > > > > > Got it, will make the necessary change soon. > > > > > > > > Where I need help is the tree creation, even though I use > > > > '--tree-line-length' I faced the issue with overrunning the 80 > > > > characters. > > > > > > > > pyang --ietf -f tree --tree-line-length=68 --tree-depth=10 > > > > [email protected] --ietf >ietf-pcep.tree > > > > > > Have you tried using pyang 1.7.8? When I run that the tree seems to > > > fit the line lengths. > > > > > > > That made me pick a shorter prefix, but happy to learn if there is > a > > > > better way out there! > > > > > > Personally, I'm not too fond of very large tree diagrams. I prefer > to > > > split them into smaller diagrams. So I like your overview diagram > in > > > section 5.1. I would then probably add a small diagram in each of > the > > > section 5.2-5.6, and remove secion 5.7 completely. But this is just > > > my personal preference! > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > Dhruv > > > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 2:16 PM Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On the question of prefix, where I an interested in the > opinion > > of a > > > > > > YANG > > > > > > Doctor, you use the single letter 'p' and say that a longer > > prefix gives > > > > > > you line length problems. YANG does allow statements to span > > lines, as > > > > > > happens in almost every TEAS module so for me that is not a > very > > good > > > > > > reason; I would prefer something of two characters or more. > > > > > > > > > > > > I note that IANA Considerations says > > > > > > Prefix: pcep > > > > > > which would be my first choice even if I then have to span > > lines. > > > > > > > > > > I strongly agree. Since the prefix is actually part of the IANA > > > > > registry and needs to be unique, I think you should use a longer > > > > > prefix. "pcep" seems reasonable. If you run into line length > > > > > problems, I'll be glad to help you fix them. > > > > > > > > > > Before this document goes to the RFC editor, I suggest you run > the > > > > > tool: > > > > > > > > > > pyang -f yang --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 <FILE> > > > > > > > > > > on these modules, in order to get them formatted consistently > with > > the > > > > > rest of the IETF modules. > > > > > > > > > > > You import the module key-chain but you do not use the prefix > > that it > > > > > > defines, namely key-chain; not forbidden but not recommended > > practice > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise tls-client should be tlsc and tls-server tlss. > > > > > > > > > > > > Security and IANA Considerations deal with > > > > > > Name: ietf-pcep > > > > > > What about > > > > > > module ietf-pcep-stats { > > > > > > which I think needs separate coverage, a separate section, in > > Security > > > > > > and must be covered in IANA Considerations. > > > > > > > > > > > > The problem with > > > > > > "I-D.ietf-pce-association-group: PCEP Extensions for ... > > > > > > as a reference is that when it appears in the text of the I-D, > > then it > > > > > > is as > > > > > > [I-D.ietf-pce-association-group] > > > > > > i.e. a XML/HTML type anchor which is picked up by tools so the > > RFC > > > > > > Editor cannot miss it. > > > > > > > > > > > > When it appears in the YANG module, it must be plain text as > in > > > > > > "I-D.ietf-pce-association-group: PCEP Extensions for > .... > > > > > > so the tools cannot pick it up, it must be spotted by eye and > so > > might > > > > > > be missed. Hence I suggest using > > > > > > > > > > > > "RFC YYYY - PCEP Extensions for > > > > > > Establishing Relationships Between Sets of LSPs"; > > > > > > > > > > > > with a note to the RFC Editor asking them to replace YYYY with > > the RFC > > > > > > number assigned to I-D.ietf-pce-association-group > > > > > > > > > > > > Likewise RFC ZZZZ for > > > > > > "I-D.ietf-pce-segment-routing: PCEP Extensions for > > Segment > > > > > > and so on for the others (of which there are several) > > > > > > > > > > > > The RFC Editor is ok, likes even, all the notes thereon to > > appear once > > > > > > at the start of the I-D. > > > > > > > > > > > > So my previous comment was that using XXXX for multiple I-Ds > was > > > > > > confusing but I meant to use YYYY ZZZZ, with an RFC Editor > Note > > for > > > > > > each, and not to use the I-D name. > > > > > > > > > > > > HTH > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Petch > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Dhruv Dhody" <[email protected]> > > > > > > To: "Mahesh Jethanandani" <[email protected]> > > > > > > Cc: <[email protected]>; > > <[email protected]>; > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2019 9:07 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Pce] Yangdoctors early review of > > > > > > draft-ietf-pce-pcep-yang-08 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mahesh, > <snip> > >
_______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
