Jon, My co-author Patrick has double-checked your suggested corrections, and he said that your suggested corrections make sense.
Roman, We will submit the revisions of the following I2NSF drafts according to Jon's comments: Could you approve the two submissions under RFC Ed Queue later? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-19 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-28 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-consumer-facing-interface-dm-20 Thanks. Best Regards, Paul On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 10:31 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > > > Thanks. It is worth though someone else doing a sanity check on my > proposed corrections! > > > > It is frustrating though that > http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-xmlschema-2-20041028 (as per > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-9.4.5) does not > define how to do match things case insensitively (that I can find) which > would make this pattern much more readable for all of the regular and > irregular branches. > > > > Regards > > > > Jon > > > > *From:* Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong [mailto: [email protected]] > *Sent:* 01 June 2022 14:13 > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Patrick Lingga; Mr. Jaehoon Paul > Jeong > *Subject:* Re: [I2nsf] draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model > > > > Hi Jon, > > Thanks for these two corrections about the YANG language pattern match > below. > > > > We authors will reflect your comments on the following two I2NSF drafts > under RFC Ed Queue, and > > submit the revisions: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-monitoring-data-model-19 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-i2nsf-nsf-facing-interface-dm-28 > > > > Thanks. > > > > Best Regards, > > Paul > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2022 at 9:49 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > I appreciate that this may be a bit late in the day, but I have found a > couple of issues with the YANG language pattern match when doing a check > against draft-ietf-dots-telemetry-25.txt, currently in AUTH48. What I have > reported against that draft is:- > > > > During testing of the horrendous pattern provided for pattern matching > > against description-lang, I have found an alternate branch error which > needs > > correcting. > > > > OLD: > > leaf description-lang { > > type string { > > pattern '(([A-Za-z]{2,3}(-[A-Za-z]{3}(-[A-Za-z]{3})' > > + '{0,2})?|[A-Za-z]{4}|[A-Za-z]{5,8})(-[A-Za-z]{4})?' > > NEW: > > leaf description-lang { > > type string { > > pattern '((([A-Za-z]{2,3}(-[A-Za-z]{3}(-[A-Za-z]{3})' > > + '{0,2})?)|[A-Za-z]{4}|[A-Za-z]{5,8})(-[A-Za-z]{4})?' > > > > I.e, additional () around A-Za-z]{2,3}(-[A-Za-z]{3}(-[A-Za-z]{3})' > > + '{0,2})? > > > > Reasoning - RFC5646 2.1 > > language = 2*3ALPHA ; shortest ISO 639 code > > ["-" extlang] ; sometimes followed by > > ; extended language subtags > > / 4ALPHA ; or reserved for future use > > / 5*8ALPHA ; or registered language subtag > > > > The additional () contain the 2*3ALPHA ["-" extlang] as a branch > alternative > > to 4*ALPHA or 5*ALPHA. > > > > There also is an unneeded character range, namely > > > > OLD: > > + '|([0-9][A-Za-z0-9]{3})))*(-[0-9A-WY-Za-wy-z]' > > NEW: > > + '|([0-9][A-Za-z0-9]{3})))*(-[0-9A-WYZa-wyz]' > > > > As y is alphabetically adjacent to z ([0-9A-WYZa-wyz] is the singleton > > definition). > > > > Regards > > > > Jon > > _______________________________________________ > I2nsf mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf > >
_______________________________________________ I2nsf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2nsf
