Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

2018-04-11 Thread t.petch 
Mach

One additional thought on tree diagrams.

This is now RFC8340

and

YANG guidelines 6087bis section 3.4 says

"   If YANG tree diagrams are used, then an informative reference to the
   YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be included in the document.
"
whereas you currently have it as a Normative Reference (well, perhaps
two related thoughts:-(

Tom Petch

- Original Message -
From: "Alissa Cooper" <ali...@cooperw.in>
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:50 PM

> On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:42 PM
>> To: Mach Chen <mach.c...@huawei.com>; Alissa Cooper
>> <ali...@cooperw.in>; The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
>> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org;
i2rs-cha...@ietf.org;
>> sha...@ndzh.com
>> Subject: Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-
>> model-10: (with COMMENT)
>>
>>  Original Message -
>> From: "Mach Chen" <mach.c...@huawei.com>
>> To: "Alissa Cooper" <ali...@cooperw.in>; "The IESG" <i...@ietf.org>
>> Cc: <i2rs@ietf.org>; <draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org>;
>> <i2rs-cha...@ietf.org>; <sha...@ndzh.com>
>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:23 AM
>>
>>> Hi Alissa,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments!
>>>
>>> Please see my responses inline...
>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>>>> From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa
Cooper
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:10 PM
>>>> To: The IESG <i...@ietf.org>
>>>> Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org;
>> i2rs-cha...@ietf.org;
>>>> sha...@ndzh.com
>>>> Subject: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
>> draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10:
>>>> (with COMMENT)
>>>>
>>>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>>>> draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: No Objection
>>>>
>>>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
>> all email
>>>> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory
>>>> paragraph, however.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please refer to
>> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
>>>> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 
--
>>>> COMMENT:
>>>
>>> 
--
>>>>
>>>> Sec 1.2:
>>>>
>>>> "YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG
>> module,
>>>>   and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
>>>>   structure."
>>>>
>>>> This document does not seem like an appropriate place to have
>> normative
>>>> guidance about this. And if this sentence is removed, I don't see
>> the point of
>>>> including Section 1.2 otherwise. This would also imply deleting the
>> reference to
>>>> I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams.
>>>
>>> This results from a YANG doctor review.  I saw it also occurs in
other
>> published documents. I personally think it's no harm to keep it, how
do you
>> think?
>>
>> Mach
>>
>> I think that this is very odd.
>>
>> YANG guidelines rfc6087bis says
>> "   YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG
>> module,
>>   and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
>>   structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3
of
>>   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
>> "
>> which I think is the correct guidance in the correct place.
>>
>> A quick look at the recently published RFC8343, RFC8344, RFC8345,
>> RFC8346 contain no text of the kind you suggest so if it occurs in
other I-D, then
>> I would regard those other I-D as being in error.
>>
>> If I look back at a thread from Ebben for a yang doctor review of an

Re: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: (with COMMENT)

2018-04-08 Thread t.petch 
 Original Message -
From: "Mach Chen" 
To: "Alissa Cooper" ; "The IESG" 
Cc: ; ;
; 
Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 9:23 AM

> Hi Alissa,
>
> Thanks for your comments!
>
> Please see my responses inline...
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: i2rs [mailto:i2rs-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alissa Cooper
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 11:10 PM
> > To: The IESG 
> > Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-mo...@ietf.org;
i2rs-cha...@ietf.org;
> > sha...@ndzh.com
> > Subject: [i2rs] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10:
> > (with COMMENT)
> >
> > Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
> > draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-10: No Objection
> >
> > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
all email
> > addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory
> > paragraph, however.)
> >
> >
> > Please refer to
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> >
> >
> > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> > COMMENT:
>
> --
> >
> > Sec 1.2:
> >
> > "YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG
module,
> >and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
> >structure."
> >
> > This document does not seem like an appropriate place to have
normative
> > guidance about this. And if this sentence is removed, I don't see
the point of
> > including Section 1.2 otherwise. This would also imply deleting the
reference to
> > I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams.
>
> This results from a YANG doctor review.  I saw it also occurs in other
published documents. I personally think it's no harm to keep it, how do
you think?

Mach

I think that this is very odd.

YANG guidelines rfc6087bis says
"   YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG
module,
   and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module
   structure.  Guidelines on tree diagrams can be found in Section 3 of
   [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
"
which I think is the correct guidance in the correct place.

A quick look at the recently published RFC8343, RFC8344, RFC8345,
RFC8346 contain no text of the kind you suggest so if it occurs in other
I-D, then I would regard those other I-D as being in error.

If I look back at a thread from Ebben for a yang doctor review of an
earlier version of this I-D, the text I see proposed is

"
>A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in
>this document.  The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams is
>defined in [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams].
"
which I think is rather different.

Tom Petch
(not a YANG doctor)

> >
> > Sec 2.1: Again here I'm confused about the use of normative
language. Why do
> > you need to specify normative requirements for what this very
document is
> > specifying? Or are these supposed to be requirements on
implementations?
>
> OK, how about this:
>
> "...a RIB data model needs to specify a way for an external entity to
learn about the functional capabilities of a network device." And
>
> " The RIB data model needs a way to expose the nexthop chaining
capability supported by a given network device."
>
> >
> > Sec 2.5: s/causes/caused/
>
> Done
>
> The above updates will be reelected in version-11.
>
> Thanks,
> Mach
> >

___
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Re: [i2rs] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09

2018-02-22 Thread t.petch 
 Original Message -
From: "Mahesh Jethanandani" 
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2018 12:43 AM
>
> > On Feb 20, 2018, at 7:24 AM, Amit Dass 
wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ebben,
> >
> > I have updated the draft based on your comments. Could you please
have a look at the same and provide your feedback?
>
> The indentations are all over the place for the new references that
have been added.
>
> More importantly, and this discussion is still open in front of YANG
doctors, adding a reference statement to an import statement, seems to
imply a import by revision. As an example, the import of ietf-interfaces
has a reference to RFC 7223. But we know that ietf-interfaces is going
to updated soon by whatever RFC number gets assigned to rfc7223bis.
Expect further guidance on this.

Mahesh

As you doubtless know, this I-D is expected to be approved on March 8th,
so there is a certain urgency about this.

The latest guidelines, draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-18, include

   For every import or include statement that appears in a module
   contained in the specification, which identifies a module in a
   separate document, a corresponding normative reference to that
   document MUST appear in the Normative References section.

which seems clear and right to me.  This also says to me that a specific
version of the module is referenced via the Normative References
whether or not the import has a revision clause.

and it also says

 If an import statement is for a module from a stable source (e.g., an
   RFC for an IETF module), then a reference-stmt SHOULD be present
   within an import statement.

So for me there is (almost) always a reference statement to an RFC (or
I-D) even, or especially when, no particular revision is wanted.

This is what has coloured my comments on YANG modules.

Tom Petch

> Also, I do not see normative references to RFC 6991, and RFC 7223 in
the text of the document. If this is not clear, see rfc7223bis, where in
Section 3.1, there is normative reference to RFC7224 for the
iana-if-types module that is imported by the ietf-interfaces module.
>
> Cheers.
>
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model/
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Amit
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Ebben Aries [mailto:e...@juniper.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 9:33 AM
> > To: yang-doct...@ietf.org
> > Cc: i2rs@ietf.org; draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model@ietf.org;
i...@ietf.org
> > Subject: Yangdoctors early review of
draft-ietf-i2rs-rib-data-model-09
> >
> > Reviewer: Ebben Aries
> > Review result: On the Right Track
> >
> > 1 module in this draft:
> > - ietf-i2rs-...@2017-12-05.yang
> >
> > No YANG validation errors or warnings (from pyang 1.7.3 and yanglint
0.14.59)
> >
> > 0 examples are provided in this draft (section 3.12 of
> > draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15)
> >
> > Module ietf-i2rs-...@2017-12-05.yang:
> > - yang-version statement missing - should be 1.1
> > - prefix 'iir' is recommended for this module, would 'rib' suffice
better?
> > - import "ietf-inet-types" should reference RFC 6991 per (not as a
comment)
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
> > - import "ietf-interfaces" should reference RFC 7223 per
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
>
> This should reference rfc7223bis.
>
> > - import "ietf-yang-types" should reference RFC 6991 per
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-4.7
> > - Since this module imports "ietf-interfaces", a normative
references must be
> >  added per
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-3.9
> > - prefix "if" in the import "ietf-interfaces" can remove quotes to
remain
> >  consistent with other imports
> > - Remove WG Chairs from contact information per
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
> > - Module description must contain most recent copyright notice per
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
> > - Module description should contain note to RFC Ed. and placeholder
reference
> >  to RFC when assigned
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
> > - Add placeholder reference and note to RFC Ed. for RFC when
assigned
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#appendix-C
> > - Security Considerations should be updated to reflect new template
at
> >  https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines
> > - Section 1.2 should be replaced with reference to
> >  draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams-02 rather (as-is in other i2rs
YANG
> >  drafts in progress) per
> >
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-15#section-2.5.
1
> > - This module contains '12' features.  While it is understood the
purpose of
> >  these features in the module, take precaution as to complexity for
clients
> >  if they need to understand