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

2018-04-11 Thread Susan Hares 
Tom - thank you for your continued review of this work!

Sue Hares 

-Original Message-
From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2018 5:22 AM
To: Alissa Cooper; Mach Chen
Cc: IESG; 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)

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" 
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:50 PM

> On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Mach Chen  wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:42 PM
>> To: Mach Chen ; Alissa Cooper 
>> ; The IESG 
>> 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" 
>> 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.
>
> Indeed, my fault, I just checked Ebben's suggestion, it's as above
quoted.
>
> To Alissa:
> If change to following text, is it OK for you?
>
> "A simplified graphical representation of the data model is used in 
> this document.  The meaning of the symbols in these diagrams

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" 
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 8:50 PM

> On Apr 8, 2018, at 9:20 AM, Mach Chen  wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: t.petch [mailto:ie...@btconnect.com]
>> Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2018 7:42 PM
>> To: Mach Chen ; Alissa Cooper
>> ; The IESG 
>> 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" 
>> 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.
>
> Indeed, my fault, I just checked Ebben's suggestion, it's as above
quoted.
>
> To Alissa:
> If change to following text, is it OK for you?
>
> "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].”

Yes, thanks.
Alissa

>
>
> Best regards,
> Mach
>>
>> 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