Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

[Kent Watsen]

The general YANG Doctor opinion is that all drafts defining YANG modules should 
have examples, since the examples both aid in understandability and sometimes 
reveal modeling issues that are otherwise hard to spot.  To underscore this 
point further, the YANG Doctors even discussed introducing some form of 
automatic "coverage" analysis, whereby tooling could e.g., ensure that at least 
50% of the YANG module is represented by [valid] examples.

I'm "fine" with the draft not having examples only from a "I leave it to the 
WG" perspective, nothing more.

Thanks,
Kent


On 11/12/17, 9:47 AM, "Susan Hares" > 
wrote:

Alex:

Welcome to Singapore.  Wow!  Today’s going to be a long day for you.  Perhaps 
we should talk after you take a short nap.

#1 definition - Section 3 still defines datastore uniquely, although you do 
point to the revised datastores.  It would be best to make the same reference 
in section 3.

#2 No examples – Please confirm by asking Kent Watsen on list regarding the 
examples.   Otherwise, we’ll cycle on this when we get to the IESG.

Also – please see the comments that were unresolved from Lada’s review of the 
L3 topology.

Sue Hares


From: Alexander Clemm [mailto:lud...@clemm.org]
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:40 PM
To: i2rs@ietf.org; Susan Hares
Cc: 'Kent Watsen'; i2rs-cha...@ietf.org; i2rs-...@ietf.org; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 
10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

Hi Sue, I just arrived in Singapore.
I did adopt the definition. This is addressed in -17.
I did not put the example per earlier email exchange and at the time Kent 
seemed to be fine with that?
Thanks, Alex
Get Outlook for 
Android




On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:13 AM +0800, "Susan Hares" 
> wrote:
Alex:

I had hoped to celebrate IETF-100 with submitting 
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17 to the IESG.  However, there are still a 
few things to resolve from Kent Watens review 
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg04501.html).

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I found the following things 
addressed:

1)   "ietf-network" uses prefix “nd”, should be “nw” and 
"ietf-network-topology" uses  prefix “lnk” should be “nt” or maybe “nwtp”.

2)   the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate why 
they are defined but not used in these modules

3)   Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and 
/nd:networks/network/link/link-id are the key fields to their respective lists, 
but they are not the first nodes listed in the list.

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I do not find the following 
things address that Ken commented on:

1)   Kent’s comment: Use cases exist in appendix A, but yang examples do 
not exist.

Fix: Short examples could be put in Appendix A with each use case)

2)   Kent’s comment: The document defines its own "datastore" term, rather 
than import the term from revised-datastores.

Question: Section 3 still gives its own datastore definition.  Is there a 
reason I missed on this approach?
Could you wrap up these two issues today and submit a -18 to the IETF drafts?  
I’d love to chat today about these two issues.
Susan Hares
(shepherd/co-chair)

She



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

Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

[Susan Hares]

Alex: 

 

Welcome to Singapore.  Wow!  Today’s going to be a long day for you.  Perhaps 
we should talk after you take a short nap. 

 

#1 definition - Section 3 still defines datastore uniquely, although you do 
point to the revised datastores.  It would be best to make the same reference 
in section 3. 

 

#2 No examples – Please confirm by asking Kent Watsen on list regarding the 
examples.   Otherwise, we’ll cycle on this when we get to the IESG. 

 

Also – please see the comments that were unresolved from Lada’s review of the 
L3 topology.   

 

Sue Hares 

 

 

From: Alexander Clemm [mailto:lud...@clemm.org] 
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2017 8:40 PM
To: i2rs@ietf.org; Susan Hares
Cc: 'Kent Watsen'; i2rs-cha...@ietf.org; i2rs-...@ietf.org; 'Alia Atlas'
Subject: Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 
10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

 

Hi Sue, I just arrived in Singapore.

I did adopt the definition. This is addressed in -17. 

I did not put the example per earlier email exchange and at the time Kent 
seemed to be fine with that?

Thanks, Alex

Get Outlook for Android  

 





On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:13 AM +0800, "Susan Hares"  wrote:

Alex: 

 

I had hoped to celebrate IETF-100 with submitting 
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17 to the IESG.  However, there are still a 
few things to resolve from Kent Watens review 
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg04501.html). 

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I found the following things 
addressed: 

1)  "ietf-network" uses prefix “nd”, should be “nw” and 
"ietf-network-topology" uses  prefix “lnk” should be “nt” or maybe “nwtp”.

2)  the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate why 
they are defined but not used in these modules

3)  Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and 
/nd:networks/network/link/link-id are the key fields to their respective lists, 
but they are not the first nodes listed in the list.

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I do not find the following 
things address that Ken commented on: 

1)  Kent’s comment: Use cases exist in appendix A, but yang examples do not 
exist.  

Fix: Short examples could be put in Appendix A with each use case) 

2)  Kent’s comment: The document defines its own "datastore" term, rather 
than import the term from revised-datastores.  

Question: Section 3 still gives its own datastore definition.  Is there a 
reason I missed on this approach? 

Could you wrap up these two issues today and submit a -18 to the IETF drafts?  
I’d love to chat today about these two issues. 

Susan Hares

(shepherd/co-chair) 

 

She

 

 

 

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

Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

[Alexander Clemm]

Hi Sue, I just arrived in Singapore.


I did adopt the definition. This is addressed in -17. 


I did not put the example per earlier email exchange and at the time Kent 
seemed to be fine with that?


Thanks, Alex




Get Outlook for Android







On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 9:13 AM +0800, "Susan Hares"  wrote:












Alex: 

 

I had hoped to celebrate IETF-100 with submitting 
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17 to the IESG.  However, there are still a 
few things to resolve from Kent Watens review 
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg04501.html). 

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I found the following things 
addressed: 

1)  "ietf-network" uses prefix “nd”, should be “nw” and 
"ietf-network-topology" uses  prefix “lnk” should be “nt” or maybe “nwtp”.    

2)  the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate why 
they are defined but not used in these modules

3) Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and 
/nd:networks/network/link/link-id are the key fields to their respective lists, 
but they are not the first nodes listed in the list.

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I do not find the following 
things address that Ken commented on: 

1)  Kent’s comment: Use cases exist in appendix A, but yang examples do not 
exist.  

Fix: Short examples could be put in Appendix A with each use case) 

2)  Kent’s comment: The document defines its own "datastore" term, rather 
than import the term from revised-datastores.  

Question: Section 3 still gives its own datastore definition.  Is there a 
reason I missed on this approach? 

Could you wrap up these two issues today and submit a -18 to the IETF drafts?  
I’d love to chat today about these two issues. 

Susan Hares

(shepherd/co-chair) 

 

She

 

 

  




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

Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

[Susan Hares]

Alex: 

 

I had hoped to celebrate IETF-100 with submitting
draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17 to the IESG.  However, there are still
a few things to resolve from Kent Watens review
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/i2rs/current/msg04501.html). 

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I found the following
things addressed: 

1)  "ietf-network" uses prefix "nd", should be "nw" and
"ietf-network-topology" uses  prefix "lnk" should be "nt" or maybe "nwtp".


2)  the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate
why they are defined but not used in these modules

3) Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and
/nd:networks/network/link/link-id are the key fields to their respective
lists, but they are not the first nodes listed in the list.

 

In reviewing draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo-17, I do not find the
following things address that Ken commented on: 

1)  Kent's comment: Use cases exist in appendix A, but yang examples do
not exist.  

Fix: Short examples could be put in Appendix A with each use case) 

2)  Kent's comment: The document defines its own "datastore" term,
rather than import the term from revised-datastores.  

Question: Section 3 still gives its own datastore definition.  Is there a
reason I missed on this approach? 

Could you wrap up these two issues today and submit a -18 to the IETF
drafts?  I'd love to chat today about these two issues. 

Susan Hares

(shepherd/co-chair) 

 

She

 

 

 

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

Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

[Kent Watsen]

I didn't respond to Alex's response to my YANG Doctor review earlier, but I did
just now review his response to me against, taking into account the current
(-16) version of the draft.  Most everything has been addressed, thank you.
The remaining items that I think worthy of mentioning again are listed below.
The WG can do with them as they will.

1) "ietf-network" uses prefix “nd”, should be “nw” and "ietf-network-topology"
uses  prefix “lnk” should be “nt” or maybe “nwtp”.   There is a documented
convention for prefix naming.  Juergen shared it with me once before.  I can't
find it now.  In general, I don't think the "historic" status of something 
should
get in the way of doing what's right. In this case, it seems like a minor thing
though, but still…

2) the groupings "link-ref" and "tp-ref" descriptions should indicate why they
are defined but not used in these modules.

3) there are *no* examples in the document.  Every YANG module draft should
have examples of its YANG modules.  Suggest create examples for some use-cases
in Appendix A.

4) The document defines its own "datastore" term, rather than import the term
from revised-datastores. A lot of time has been put into getting the terms right
in revised-datastores, and any ambiguity here could be a problem.  On the other
hand, this draft already has revised-datastores as a normative reference, so 
likely
any ambiguity will be overlooked, but the issue disappears entirely by importing
the term.

5) Both /nd:networks/network/network-id and /nd:networks/network/link/link-id
are the key fields to their respective lists, but they are not the first nodes 
listed in
the list.   This is unusual, breaking a convention of some sort, though it 
might be
be an informal convention.  Just the same, why surprise the reader by going 
against
expectations?


Thanks,
Kent  // assigned YANG doctor




On 10/15/17, 3:26 PM, "i2rs on behalf of Susan Hares" 
 on behalf of 
sha...@ndzh.com> wrote:

Greetings:

We’ve only received approval from this last call.  However, this is the 4th WG 
LC. All others have been positive and well-attended.  The draft has been kicked 
back for integration with security considerations and the NETMOD revised data 
stores.   We’ve resolved these issues.   This draft and the L3 Topology draft 
are key to other drafts.

The WG chairs plan  declare consensus on this draft, and send it to the IESG.  
If anyone objects, please send email to the list by 10/20.

Susan Hares and Russ White
___
i2rs mailing list
i2rs@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs

Re: [i2rs] WG LC on draft-ietf-i2rs-yang-network-topo (9/27/2017 to 10/11/2017) - WG Consensus declared by Chairs

[Susan Hares]

Greetings: 

 

We've only received approval from this last call.  However, this is the 4th
WG LC. All others have been positive and well-attended.  The draft has been
kicked back for integration with security considerations and the NETMOD
revised data stores.   We've resolved these issues.   This draft and the L3
Topology draft are key to other drafts.

 

The WG chairs plan  declare consensus on this draft, and send it to the
IESG.  If anyone objects, please send email to the list by 10/20. 

 

Susan Hares and Russ White 

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