Re: [netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06//RE: Few Comments ////RE: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04
Rohit R Ranade writes: Hi, While looking at Section 3.1, it looks like this document does not mandate that all IETF drafts in future MUST have atleast one module-tag. Is this correct ? Or whether it is better that future IETF draft MUST/SHOULD have at least one IETF tag ? Correct, we aren't mandating tag use. Consider modules like "ietf-yang-types" and similar which provide common definitions, what will be the tags for such modules ? Editorial: Section 4.1 "If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also be Section 2.1. " ==> s/ MUST also be Section 2.1. / MUST also adhere to Section 2.1./ ? I corrected this based on the GenART review (the odd text was a tool use error on my part). "... If the module is defined in an IETF standards track document, the tags MUST be IETF Standard Tags (2.1). ..." I've been waiting to publish corrections until after the GenART review is done. Thanks, Chris. With Regards, Rohit -Original Message- From: Rohit R Ranade Sent: 21 February 2019 14:14 To: 'Christian Hopps' Cc: Joel Jaeggli ; ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org Subject: RE: [netmod] Few Comments //RE: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04 Hi, Please find inline. -Original Message- From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org] Sent: 21 February 2019 13:54 To: Rohit R Ranade Cc: Christian Hopps ; Joel Jaeggli ; ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Few Comments //RE: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04 On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:40 PM, Rohit R Ranade wrote: Hi Christian, 2 points are missing from the IANA registry, "Updates to the IETF XML Registry" and "Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry", you can refer to RFC 8342 section 8 for registering the new module and namespace. Will add, thanks. Also w.r.t "ietf:", whether we can make it "sdo:" and ask ietf modules to start their tags as "sdo:ietf:" , because all the other SDO will need to register their organization prefixes once with IANA. This will also keep it at the same level where each vendor will also define his tags as "vendor:vendor-name:x" etc. Since this isn't fixing something that's broken, and in fact is going against what was talked about and agreed to in the WG during the document development time, it's not an appropriate change to consider at this very late stage in the process. [Rohit R Ranade] OK, If the WG has decided then I concede on this point. Thanks, Chris. With Regards, Rohit -Original Message- From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org] Sent: 18 February 2019 14:57 To: Rohit R Ranade Cc: Christian Hopps ; Joel Jaeggli ; ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Few Comments //RE: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04 Rohit R Ranade writes: Hi, Thank you for accepting the comments. Few more comments from my side. Technical: 1. Section 8.1, " could allocate a top level prefix ", I think there is no concept of top-level prefix now. I think this is a remnant of the versions posted earlier where you had examples of multiple prefixes in a tag. Can be removed now I think. Indeed! I'll remove "top level", as there are no levels. 2. Why should the prefix contain ietf: , vendor:, user: ? I think the second part of the prefix is more important for classification because most of the vendors / sdo already define their own prefixes for their module-name based on RFC7950 guideline in Section 5.1. By adding the prefix, I feel it will reduce the re-usability by other SDO / vendors. Well the second part of the tag is the tag itself, the prefix is simply there to avoid collision between the module authors in various SDOs, the module implementers, and the module users. 3. Consider we have defined a module example-bgp which is similar to ietf-bgp. If we need to add tags to example-bgp, then we need to define new "vendor:" prefixes for this even if it uses some IETF protocols ? "ietf:" tags are allocated with IETF documents which is what the registry policy "IETF Review" indicates. However, this is an allocation policy not a USE policy. As module designer you get to pick whatever tags you think apply (which is what section 4.1 says). I think we need to add more clarity in this document as to when the "ietf:" prefix can be used by a module ? Whether a vendor module can/cannot use standard tags ? Consider a module which has some part of vendor and some part of IETF protocol , whether vendor can use "ietf:" tags then ? I suggest adding one more example in this document which may indicate/clarify your stand regarding this point. Again, if you are creating your own module then you can choose whatever tags you want to
[netmod] Comments on draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-06//RE: Few Comments ////RE: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04
Hi, While looking at Section 3.1, it looks like this document does not mandate that all IETF drafts in future MUST have atleast one module-tag. Is this correct ? Or whether it is better that future IETF draft MUST/SHOULD have at least one IETF tag ? Consider modules like "ietf-yang-types" and similar which provide common definitions, what will be the tags for such modules ? Editorial: Section 4.1 "If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also be Section 2.1. " ==> s/ MUST also be Section 2.1. / MUST also adhere to Section 2.1./ ? With Regards, Rohit -Original Message- From: Rohit R Ranade Sent: 21 February 2019 14:14 To: 'Christian Hopps' Cc: Joel Jaeggli ; ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org Subject: RE: [netmod] Few Comments //RE: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04 Hi, Please find inline. -Original Message- From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org] Sent: 21 February 2019 13:54 To: Rohit R Ranade Cc: Christian Hopps ; Joel Jaeggli ; ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; iesg-secret...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Few Comments //RE: Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04 > On Feb 20, 2019, at 10:40 PM, Rohit R Ranade wrote: > > Hi Christian, > > 2 points are missing from the IANA registry, "Updates to the IETF XML > Registry" and "Updates to the YANG Module Names Registry", you can refer to > RFC 8342 section 8 for registering the new module and namespace. Will add, thanks. > Also w.r.t "ietf:", whether we can make it "sdo:" and ask ietf modules to > start their tags as "sdo:ietf:" , because all the other SDO will need to > register their organization prefixes once with IANA. This will also keep it > at the same level where each vendor will also define his tags as > "vendor:vendor-name:x" etc. Since this isn't fixing something that's broken, and in fact is going against what was talked about and agreed to in the WG during the document development time, it's not an appropriate change to consider at this very late stage in the process. [Rohit R Ranade] OK, If the WG has decided then I concede on this point. Thanks, Chris. > > With Regards, > Rohit > > -Original Message- > From: Christian Hopps [mailto:cho...@chopps.org] > Sent: 18 February 2019 14:57 > To: Rohit R Ranade > Cc: Christian Hopps ; Joel Jaeggli > ; ibagd...@gmail.com; netmod-cha...@ietf.org; > iesg-secret...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] Few Comments //RE: Publication has been > requested for draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04 > > > Rohit R Ranade writes: > >> Hi, >> >> Thank you for accepting the comments. Few more comments from my side. >> >> Technical: >> 1. Section 8.1, " could allocate a top level prefix ", I think there is no >> concept of top-level prefix now. I think this is a remnant of the versions >> posted earlier where you had examples of multiple prefixes in a tag. Can be >> removed now I think. > > Indeed! I'll remove "top level", as there are no levels. > >> 2. Why should the prefix contain ietf: , vendor:, user: ? I think the >> second part of the prefix is more important for classification because most >> of the vendors / sdo already define their own prefixes for their module-name >> based on RFC7950 guideline in Section 5.1. By adding the prefix, I feel it >> will reduce the re-usability by other SDO / vendors. > > Well the second part of the tag is the tag itself, the prefix is simply there > to avoid collision between the module authors in various SDOs, the module > implementers, and the module users. > >> 3. Consider we have defined a module example-bgp which is similar to >> ietf-bgp. >> If we need to add tags to example-bgp, then we need to define new "vendor:" >> prefixes for this even if it uses some IETF protocols ? > > "ietf:" tags are allocated with IETF documents which is what the registry > policy "IETF Review" indicates. > > However, this is an allocation policy not a USE policy. As module designer > you get to pick whatever tags you think apply (which is what section 4.1 > says). > >> I think we need to add more clarity in this document as to when the "ietf:" >> prefix can be used by a module ? Whether a vendor module can/cannot use >> standard tags ? >> Consider a module which has some part of vendor and some part of IETF >> protocol , whether vendor can use "ietf:" tags then ? >> I suggest adding one more example in this document which may >> indicate/clarify your stand regarding this point. > > Again, if you are creating your own module then you can choose whatever tags > you want to add to it (section 4.1). > > I've changed the headings under section 4 to: > > 4.1 "Module Definition Tagging" > 4.2 "Implementation Tagging" > 4.3 "User Tagging" > > and split 4.1 into 2 paragraphs (at "If the"
