Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[tom petch]

From: Christian Hopps 
Sent: 28 March 2020 13:39
> On Mar 28, 2020, at 8:36 AM, tom petch  wrote:
>
>> A wholesale lack of YANG reference clauses; perhaps half a dozen needed
> I can see 2 places I might could put these, in the "astronomical-body" leaf 
> that references the IAU and in the "geodetic-system" for the default value. 
> We are creating an IANA registry for the values in geodetic-system though so 
> perhaps you are asking for an IANA reference instead? I don't see 4 more 
> obvious places for external references, could you help point them out?
>  A good starting point is any reference in the body of the I-D should be 
> in the YANG module too in a reference clause, such as www.iau.org, IS6709, 
> WGS84 and may be more than once for different description clauses.  velocity 
> could include the formula or refer back to RFC perhaps timestamp too.  
> RFC8344 has enough (but not too many IMHO).

I'll go through the doc, and see what else I might could add. A couple points 
in the meantime though...

Some of these references (non-normative) in the document are for the 
comparisons to other work, and they point at other outside normative 
definitions for similar objects. I think it would be wrong to put references in 
the YANG module that point away from the definitive work (this document) and 
towards some other normative standard.

For velocity, referring back to the RFC that defines the module within 
sub-statements of the module seems rather redundant. The reference at the top 
of the module is the default reference for the module, if one starts adding the 
same reference to module sub-statements where does it end?


Christian
Think of an operator trouble shooting a velocity-related incident.  The YANG 
module is readily available and the description clause and any other part of 
the leaf definition is on the screen.  If that is all, and it is not enough, 
then the operator has to 
- pull up the entire YANG module
- scroll to the top and find the RFC  from which the module was extracted
- pull up the RFC and search it in its entirety
Contrast that with a YANG reference clause that says RFC  s.2.3 which the 
OAM system may already have as a URL.
Likewise if the authority for syntax, semantics etc is a third party such as 
IAU, then better the reference clause takes the user straight there.
I think that the description clauses are good, often they are too thin, but 
sometimes more detail is wanted and that is where the YANG reference clause 
comes to the fore.
YANG modules need to be user-friendly when stand-alone.
Tom Petch




Other than that, I'll comb through again to look for normative references that 
aren't yet in the module, and also address your other concerns in a follow up 
version of the document.

Thanks for the review and comments!

Chris.

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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[Christian Hopps]

> On Mar 28, 2020, at 8:36 AM, tom petch  wrote:
> 
>> A wholesale lack of YANG reference clauses; perhaps half a dozen needed
> I can see 2 places I might could put these, in the "astronomical-body" leaf 
> that references the IAU and in the "geodetic-system" for the default value. 
> We are creating an IANA registry for the values in geodetic-system though so 
> perhaps you are asking for an IANA reference instead? I don't see 4 more 
> obvious places for external references, could you help point them out?
>  A good starting point is any reference in the body of the I-D should be 
> in the YANG module too in a reference clause, such as www.iau.org, IS6709, 
> WGS84 and may be more than once for different description clauses.  velocity 
> could include the formula or refer back to RFC perhaps timestamp too.  
> RFC8344 has enough (but not too many IMHO).

I'll go through the doc, and see what else I might could add. A couple points 
in the meantime though...

Some of these references (non-normative) in the document are for the 
comparisons to other work, and they point at other outside normative 
definitions for similar objects. I think it would be wrong to put references in 
the YANG module that point away from the definitive work (this document) and 
towards some other normative standard.

For velocity, referring back to the RFC that defines the module within 
sub-statements of the module seems rather redundant. The reference at the top 
of the module is the default reference for the module, if one starts adding the 
same reference to module sub-statements where does it end?

Other than that, I'll comb through again to look for normative references that 
aren't yet in the module, and also address your other concerns in a follow up 
version of the document.

Thanks for the review and comments!

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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[tom petch]

from: Mahesh Jethanandani 
Sent: 27 March 2020 17:37
Hi Tom,

Not questioning the Not Ready status for the overall draft, but on the issues 
you raise about the yang model ...


Mahesh
see my reply to Christian - I think I have covered the points that you raise 
except why the tools do not give you a warning about them!
tom petch

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 10:09 AM, tom petch  wrote:
>
> Kent
>
> Not Ready
>
> I thought that so obvious that it was not worth saying:-)
>
> e.g.
> IANA considerations does not register the namespace so there is no module
> Security Considerations does not use template (which other grouping modules 
> such as Kent's do)
> No YANG version

Which version statement were you referring to? There is one in the model with 
the date 2019-02-17.

> Wrong prefix for ietf-yang-types

Does the prefix have to be the same as what the model declares? None of the 
tools complain about it.

> No reference clause for yang types

Yes, as pointed out in the review.

> A wholesale lack of YANG reference clauses; perhaps half a dozen needed
> No Normative reference for yang-types

Yes, as pointed out in the review.

> Insufficient information for IANA - I infer they are being asked to create a 
> registry but details seem lacking compared to the requirements in RFC8126
>
> At which point I stop and await a fresh revision before having another go.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> 
> From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen 
> 
> Sent: 26 March 2020 18:46
>
> Dear All,
>
> This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the 
> document at this time.  The WGLC is therefore being extended  for another 
> week, now ending April 1st (the day before our Virtual Meeting on April 2nd).
>
> Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
> is ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even 
> from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at 
> this time.
>
> FWIW, the YANG Doctor review was completed on 3/23 (thanks Mahesh) with the 
> “Ready with Nits” status: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04-yangdoctors-lc-jethanandani-2020-03-23.
>
> Kent // as shepherd and co-chair
>
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Kent Watsen 
> mailto:kent+i...@watsen.net>> wrote:
>
> This message begins an almost two-week WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 ending on March 22nd (the day before the 
> NETMOD sessions).  Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04
>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready 
> for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from 
> authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.
>
> Thank you,
> NETMOD Chairs
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanand...@gmail.com
___
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[tom petch]

From: Christian Hopps 
Sent: 27 March 2020 17:39

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 1:09 PM, tom petch  wrote:
>
> Kent
>
> Not Ready
>
> e.g.
> IANA considerations does not register the namespace so there is no module
Will add.
 RFC8344 gets that right - note the reference to RFC6020

> Security Considerations does not use template (which other grouping modules 
> such as Kent's do)
I've pinged Kent for a pointer.
 and Kent has responded

> No YANG version
This means it defaults to 1.0 I thought.
 RFC8407 template has 1.1 and says that that is a SHOULD
 
> Wrong prefix for ietf-yang-types
Will change the groupings use from "types" to "yang".
 yes please that is a MUST in RFC8407  

> No reference clause for yang types
Do you mean inside the import ietf-yang-types statement?
 yes that is a SHOULD in RFC8407

> A wholesale lack of YANG reference clauses; perhaps half a dozen needed
I can see 2 places I might could put these, in the "astronomical-body" leaf 
that references the IAU and in the "geodetic-system" for the default value.. We 
are creating an IANA registry for the values in geodetic-system though so 
perhaps you are asking for an IANA reference instead? I don't see 4 more 
obvious places for external references, could you help point them out?
 A good starting point is any reference in the body of the I-D should be in 
the YANG module too in a reference clause, such as www.iau.org, IS6709, WGS84 
and may be more than once for different description clauses.  velocity could 
include the formula or refer back to RFC perhaps timestamp too.  RFC8344 
has enough (but not too many IMHO).

> No Normative reference for yang-types
We add normative document references for imported modules that are not 
mentioned anywhere else in the actual document? I have no problem doing so, but 
I haven't done that before.
 Normative reference for an import is MUST in RFC8407 and you will need to 
add a reference in the body of the I-D to avoid unused reference; RFC8344 s.4 
gets that right

> Insufficient information for IANA - I infer they are being asked to create a 
> registry but details seem lacking compared to the requirements in RFC8126
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll add this instead of waiting for IANA to 
complain. :)
 Note the point about naming, a two tier structure with the top level being 
key.  Historically, many significant registries have been given unfortunate 
names making the data scattered and hard to find (SNMP).  Whether this should 
be a top level on its own of whether it should fall under something more 
generic, such as orphan YANG registries, I would be interested to hear other 
views on.

Tom Petch

Thanks,
Chris.

>
> At which point I stop and await a fresh revision before having another go.
>
> Tom Petch
>
> 
> From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen 
> 
> Sent: 26 March 2020 18:46
>
> Dear All,
>
> This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the 
> document at this time.  The WGLC is therefore being extended  for another 
> week, now ending April 1st (the day before our Virtual Meeting on April 2nd).
>
> Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
> is ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even 
> from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at 
> this time.
>
> FWIW, the YANG Doctor review was completed on 3/23 (thanks Mahesh) with the 
> “Ready with Nits” status: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04-yangdoctors-lc-jethanandani-2020-03-23.
>
> Kent // as shepherd and co-chair
>
>
>
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Kent Watsen 
> mailto:kent+i...@watsen.net>> wrote:
>
> This message begins an almost two-week WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 ending on March 22nd (the day before the 
> NETMOD sessions).  Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04
>
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready 
> for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from 
> authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.
>
> Thank you,
> NETMOD Chairs
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod


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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[Kent Watsen]

Chris,

>> Security Considerations does not use template (which other grouping modules 
>> such as Kent's do)
> 
> I've pinged Kent for a pointer.

The template Tom is referring to is from 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.7.1.

That said, I have always felt that this template is a starting point that needs 
to be customized per YANG module (ideally, a separate template instance for 
each module in the draft).  For instance, if a module defines no "notification” 
or “rpc" statements, it is better for it to just say that instead of strictly 
following the template and producing an empty list.

For instance:


https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8572#section-9.15. (only defines an 
rc:yang-data structure)
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8572#section-9.16 (only defines a couple 
“rpc” statements)



https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-04.html#section-6
 (only defines “grouping”)

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-tls-client-server-04.html#section-5
 (only defines “grouping”)


Kent // contributor


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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[Christian Hopps]

> On Mar 27, 2020, at 1:09 PM, tom petch  wrote:
> 
> Kent
> 
> Not Ready
> 
> I thought that so obvious that it was not worth saying:-)
> 
> e.g.
> IANA considerations does not register the namespace so there is no module

Will add.

> Security Considerations does not use template (which other grouping modules 
> such as Kent's do)

I've pinged Kent for a pointer.

> No YANG version

This means it defaults to 1.0 I thought.

> Wrong prefix for ietf-yang-types

Will change the groupings use from "types" to "yang".

> No reference clause for yang types

Do you mean inside the import ietf-yang-types statement?

> A wholesale lack of YANG reference clauses; perhaps half a dozen needed

I can see 2 places I might could put these, in the "astronomical-body" leaf 
that references the IAU and in the "geodetic-system" for the default value. We 
are creating an IANA registry for the values in geodetic-system though so 
perhaps you are asking for an IANA reference instead? I don't see 4 more 
obvious places for external references, could you help point them out?

> No Normative reference for yang-types

We add normative document references for imported modules that are not 
mentioned anywhere else in the actual document? I have no problem doing so, but 
I haven't done that before.

> Insufficient information for IANA - I infer they are being asked to create a 
> registry but details seem lacking compared to the requirements in RFC8126

Thanks for pointing this out, I'll add this instead of waiting for IANA to 
complain. :)

Thanks,
Chris.

> 
> At which point I stop and await a fresh revision before having another go.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> 
> From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen 
> 
> Sent: 26 March 2020 18:46
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the 
> document at this time.  The WGLC is therefore being extended  for another 
> week, now ending April 1st (the day before our Virtual Meeting on April 2nd).
> 
> Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
> is ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even 
> from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at 
> this time.
> 
> FWIW, the YANG Doctor review was completed on 3/23 (thanks Mahesh) with the 
> “Ready with Nits” status: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04-yangdoctors-lc-jethanandani-2020-03-23.
> 
> Kent // as shepherd and co-chair
> 
> 
> 
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Kent Watsen 
> mailto:kent+i...@watsen.net>> wrote:
> 
> This message begins an almost two-week WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 ending on March 22nd (the day before the 
> NETMOD sessions).  Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04
> 
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready 
> for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from 
> authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.
> 
> Thank you,
> NETMOD Chairs
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[tom petch]

Kent

Not Ready

I thought that so obvious that it was not worth saying:-)

e.g.
IANA considerations does not register the namespace so there is no module
Security Considerations does not use template (which other grouping modules 
such as Kent's do)
No YANG version
Wrong prefix for ietf-yang-types
No reference clause for yang types
A wholesale lack of YANG reference clauses; perhaps half a dozen needed
No Normative reference for yang-types
Insufficient information for IANA - I infer they are being asked to create a 
registry but details seem lacking compared to the requirements in RFC8126

At which point I stop and await a fresh revision before having another go.

Tom Petch


From: netmod  on behalf of Kent Watsen 

Sent: 26 March 2020 18:46

Dear All,

This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the 
document at this time.  The WGLC is therefore being extended  for another week, 
now ending April 1st (the day before our Virtual Meeting on April 2nd).

Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is 
ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even from 
authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.

FWIW, the YANG Doctor review was completed on 3/23 (thanks Mahesh) with the 
“Ready with Nits” status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04-yangdoctors-lc-jethanandani-2020-03-23.

Kent // as shepherd and co-chair



On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Kent Watsen 
mailto:kent+i...@watsen.net>> wrote:

This message begins an almost two-week WGLC for 
draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 ending on March 22nd (the day before the 
NETMOD sessions).  Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready 
for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from 
authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.

Thank you,
NETMOD Chairs

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


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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[Mahesh Jethanandani]

As someone who has reviewed the draft, I want to say I support the work. The 
draft is short and easy to read.

Thanks.

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 11:46 AM, Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the 
> document at this time.  The WGLC is therefore being extended  for another 
> week, now ending April 1st (the day before our Virtual Meeting on April 2nd). 
>  
> 
> Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
> is ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even 
> from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at 
> this time.
> 
> FWIW, the YANG Doctor review was completed on 3/23 (thanks Mahesh) with the 
> “Ready with Nits” status: 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04-yangdoctors-lc-jethanandani-2020-03-23
>  
> .
> 
> Kent // as shepherd and co-chair
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Kent Watsen > > wrote:
>> 
>> This message begins an almost two-week WGLC for 
>> draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 ending on March 22nd (the day before the 
>> NETMOD sessions).  Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft:
>> 
>>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 
>> 
>> 
>> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is 
>> ready for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even 
>> from authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at 
>> this time.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> NETMOD Chairs
>> 
>> ___
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[Christian Hopps]

> On Mar 26, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the 
> document at this time.  The WGLC is therefore being extended  for another 
> week, now ending April 1st (the day before our Virtual Meeting on April 2nd). 
>  
> 
> Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it 
> is ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even 
> from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at 
> this time.

Well OK.

As author, I support this work. It has undergone multiple reviews, and 
revisiions, and I think it's ready to ship.

It was well supported during the adoption call, maybe it's covid getting in the 
way of things.

Thanks,
Chris.

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

Re: [netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[Kent Watsen]

Dear All,

This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the 
document at this time.  The WGLC is therefore being extended  for another week, 
now ending April 1st (the day before our Virtual Meeting on April 2nd).  

Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is 
ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even from 
authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.

FWIW, the YANG Doctor review was completed on 3/23 (thanks Mahesh) with the 
“Ready with Nits” status: 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04-yangdoctors-lc-jethanandani-2020-03-23.

Kent // as shepherd and co-chair



> On Mar 9, 2020, at 6:30 PM, Kent Watsen  wrote:
> 
> This message begins an almost two-week WGLC for 
> draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 ending on March 22nd (the day before the 
> NETMOD sessions).  Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft:
> 
>   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04
> 
> Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready 
> for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from 
> authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.
> 
> Thank you,
> NETMOD Chairs
> 
> ___
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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

[netmod] WGLC: draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

[Kent Watsen]

This message begins an almost two-week WGLC for 
draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04 ending on March 22nd (the day before the 
NETMOD sessions).  Here is a direct link to the HTML version of the draft:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-geo-location-04

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready 
for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from 
authors. Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.

Thank you,
NETMOD Chairs

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