Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20

[Kent Watsen]

Thanks Clyde.

Benoit, it's ready now.

Kent // shepherd

On 3/1/18, 10:29 AM, "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" 
> wrote:

Kent,

I published a new draft that fixes the last two points.

Thanks,

Clyde

From: Kent Watsen 
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:11 AM
To: Mahesh Jethanandani 
Cc: Clyde Wildes , "t.petch" , Yaron 
Sheffer , Ron Bonica , NETMOD 
Working Group , "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" 
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20

[+benoit]

Mahesh,

That's fine, if we want to put the RFC Editor note into the Introduction, I see 
that you did the same in the ACL draft.  But there still remains the use of IP 
addresses (not hostnames) in examples and, if we're fixing that, let's please 
also fix the typo in the title of Section 1.4.

Clyde, can you please post a v23 that fixes these last two points?

Thanks,
Kent  // shepherd


On 2/23/18, 1:05 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" 
> wrote:

Kent,




On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kent Watsen 
> wrote:

Hi Clyde,

Looking at your diff, I see that you aligned the Usage Example text and artwork 
by making the artwork use the IP address from the text, but you should've 
instead used the hostname in both locations.  Please see section 3.6 here: 
https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/checklist.

Also, I see that you moved the Editorial Note to Section 1.4 (along with a typo 
in the title, ooops).  This is fine, I guess, though I was thinking instead 
about something like a top-level "RFC Editor Considerations" near the end 
[hmmm, a budding BCP? ;)].  Actually, I wish you had explained that the text 
was not in the Abstract, but in a "" element, and it was just a rendering 
issue.  It's actually common to use the  element for this purpose (sorry 
for not recognizing it before). Please also either fix the typo or, better, 
move the section back to the  element.

I had recommended the move of the note from abstract section to the end of the 
Introduction section. Abstracts cannot have cross-references in them, which the 
note had. And that was one of the OPS-DIR comments too.





Kent // shepherd


= original message =

Kent, Tom, Yaron, and Ron,

A new version of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model has been published that 
addresses your concerns.

Thanks,



Clyde



On 2/20/18, 9:06 AM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" 
 on behalf of 
kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:












Kent









You illustrate beautifully the problem I would like a solution to.









The current thinking AFAICT is that tree-diagrams




should be an Informative Reference.









Therefore, the RFC Editor will not hold publication until an RFC number




is assigned.









Therefore, a note asking the I-D reference to be updated to reflect the




assigned RFC number is null - the RFC can be published with the




reference as an i-d and not as an RFC which is what I expect the RFC




Editor to do.









QED





   Except I know that this draft will be stuck in MISREF state and tree-diagrams

   will in fact be assigned an RFC number by the time this draft is published.



   K.








Note that this is not the case of a Normative i-d reference being buried




in the YANG module and not being.noticed by the RFC Editor; that problem




I am content with.














Tom Petch

























Please also address these issues when posting -21 to address Benoit's

   issues.  Please post -21 ASAP as Benoit has already placed this draft on

   the IESG telechat in a couple weeks.









Thanks,




Kent // shepherd














On 2/14/18, 8:18 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise"

   

 on behalf of

   bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:









Dear all,









- the draft is NMDA compliant, right? It should be mentioned.




Ex: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03, in the abstract and intro









  The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management









  Datastore Architecture defined in

   I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.














- As mentioned in the writeup, [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]

   should be an informative reference, not normative.









- Editorial:




OLD:




This draft addresses 

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20

[Clyde Wildes (cwildes)]

Kent,

I published a new draft that fixes the last two points.

Thanks,

Clyde

From: Kent Watsen 
Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 10:11 AM
To: Mahesh Jethanandani 
Cc: Clyde Wildes , "t.petch" , Yaron 
Sheffer , Ron Bonica , NETMOD 
Working Group , "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" 
Subject: Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-20

[+benoit]

Mahesh,

That's fine, if we want to put the RFC Editor note into the Introduction, I see 
that you did the same in the ACL draft.  But there still remains the use of IP 
addresses (not hostnames) in examples and, if we're fixing that, let's please 
also fix the typo in the title of Section 1.4.

Clyde, can you please post a v23 that fixes these last two points?

Thanks,
Kent  // shepherd


On 2/23/18, 1:05 PM, "Mahesh Jethanandani" 
> wrote:

Kent,



On Feb 23, 2018, at 8:02 AM, Kent Watsen 
> wrote:

Hi Clyde,

Looking at your diff, I see that you aligned the Usage Example text and artwork 
by making the artwork use the IP address from the text, but you should've 
instead used the hostname in both locations.  Please see section 3.6 here: 
https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/checklist.

Also, I see that you moved the Editorial Note to Section 1.4 (along with a typo 
in the title, ooops).  This is fine, I guess, though I was thinking instead 
about something like a top-level "RFC Editor Considerations" near the end 
[hmmm, a budding BCP? ;)].  Actually, I wish you had explained that the text 
was not in the Abstract, but in a "" element, and it was just a rendering 
issue.  It's actually common to use the  element for this purpose (sorry 
for not recognizing it before). Please also either fix the typo or, better, 
move the section back to the  element.

I had recommended the move of the note from abstract section to the end of the 
Introduction section. Abstracts cannot have cross-references in them, which the 
note had. And that was one of the OPS-DIR comments too.




Kent // shepherd


= original message =

Kent, Tom, Yaron, and Ron,

A new version of the draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model has been published that 
addresses your concerns.

Thanks,



Clyde



On 2/20/18, 9:06 AM, "netmod on behalf of Kent Watsen" 
 on behalf of 
kwat...@juniper.net> wrote:











Kent







You illustrate beautifully the problem I would like a solution to.







The current thinking AFAICT is that tree-diagrams



should be an Informative Reference.







Therefore, the RFC Editor will not hold publication until an RFC number



is assigned.







Therefore, a note asking the I-D reference to be updated to reflect the



assigned RFC number is null - the RFC can be published with the



reference as an i-d and not as an RFC which is what I expect the RFC



Editor to do.







QED





   Except I know that this draft will be stuck in MISREF state and tree-diagrams

   will in fact be assigned an RFC number by the time this draft is published.



   K.







Note that this is not the case of a Normative i-d reference being buried



in the YANG module and not being.noticed by the RFC Editor; that problem



I am content with.











Tom Petch























Please also address these issues when posting -21 to address Benoit's

   issues.  Please post -21 ASAP as Benoit has already placed this draft on

   the IESG telechat in a couple weeks.







Thanks,



Kent // shepherd











On 2/14/18, 8:18 AM, "netmod on behalf of Benoit Claise"

   

 on behalf of

   bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:







Dear all,







- the draft is NMDA compliant, right? It should be mentioned.



Ex: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03, in the abstract and intro







  The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management







  Datastore Architecture defined in

   I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.











- As mentioned in the writeup, [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams]

   should be an informative reference, not normative.







- Editorial:



OLD:



This draft addresses the common leafs



NEW:



This document addresses the common leafs







Please publish a new version asap.



In the mean time, I'm sending this draft to IETF LC.







Regards, Benoit

















  

[netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23.txt

[internet-drafts]

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Network Modeling WG of the IETF.

Title   : A YANG Data Model for Syslog Configuration
Authors : Clyde Wildes
  Kiran Koushik
Filename: draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23.txt
Pages   : 34
Date: 2018-03-01

Abstract:
   This document defines a YANG data model for the configuration of a
   syslog process.  It is intended this model be used by vendors who
   implement syslog in their systems.

   The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management
   Datastore Architecture defined in [draft-ietf-netmod-revised-
   datastores].


The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model/

There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-23


Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

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

Re: [netmod] Proposal for minimalist full NMDA support in schema mount

[Ladislav Lhotka]

Christian Hopps  writes:

> Ladislav Lhotka  writes:
>
>> On Tue, 2018-02-27 at 09:31 +0100, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 04:09:21PM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > Christian Hopps  wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Hi Rob,
>>> > >
>>> > > You do realize that no-one trying to actually deploy and run networks
>>> > > cares about live-discovery of different schema per datastore for the
>>> > > same mount point right? Like 99.999% of the clients know where things
>>> > > are supposed to reside and expect them to be there.
>>> >
>>> > But then why advertise anything at all?   We can do a *much* simpler
>>> > solution by just having the mountpoint extension, and nothing else.
>>> > Clients will know what to find anyway.
>>> >
>>>
>>> So it this a possible way out of the current situation? We publish a
>>> trimmed down document that just defines the mount point extension and
>>> we do an update of this document that adds all the details needed to
>>> obtain the schema information?
>>
>> I would say so. It would be immediately usable for the inline case.
>
> This still requires that we pull the routing NI work from the RFC ED
> queue, change normative text (the document specifically states that
> use-schema MUST be present, although it does mention that that may be
> relaxed in the future) as well as the examples listing the
> schema/modules, this is going to require at least another run through
> WGLC. It's slightly less obnoxious than the original proposal as its
> simply removing stuff and losing functionality vs. changing
> functionality.

As I already said, a reasonable alternative for me would be to proceed
with -08 and then do the YLbis and other changes as independent
work. This way, we could also hope in some feedback from NI/LNE
implementation.

Lada

>
> Thanks,
> Chris.
>
>> Lada
>>
>>>
>>> /js
>>>
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

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