Kent You flag Std-1003.1-2008 as listed as a normative reference but not used anywhere in the document. In the Descriptions, but not in the s.4.1 references, I see
This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression ... twice, which may, or may not, relate to this issue. Back in July, clyde said "I will insert a normative reference to POSIX 1003.2 in the next revision of the draft." In a similar vein, RFC6991 appears in a reference statement but nowhere else. As you point out, RFC6021 is referenced but is obsoleted by RFC6991 so should not be. And in a slightly different vein, registry [RFC7895]/>. Following the format in [RFC7950]/>, the the looks odd for plain text and for the repetition of 'the'.. Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net> To: <netmod@ietf.org> Cc: <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-mo...@ietf.org> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues > Clyde, all, > > In reviewing the draft for Shepherd writeup, I found the following issues that I think need to be addressed before the document can be sent to Benoit for AD review: > > > 1. Idnits found the following: > > Summary: 3 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 1 comment (--). > > ** There are 2 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one > being 3 characters in excess of 72. > > ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6021 (Obsoleted by RFC 6991) > > ** Downref: Normative reference to an Historic RFC: RFC 6587 > > == Missing Reference: 'RFC5425' is mentioned on line 359, but not defined > '[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848]....' > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC7895' is defined on line 1406, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > '[RFC7895] Bierman, A., Bjorklund, M., and K. Watsen, "YANG Module L...' > > == Unused Reference: 'RFC6242' is defined on line 1435, but no explicit > reference was found in the text > '[RFC6242] Wasserman, M., "Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Sh...' > > > 2. `rfcstrip` extracted "ietf-syslog.yang", which is missing "@yyyy-mm-dd" in its name > > 3. neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with ietf-syslog.yang. pyang says > for vendor-syslog-types-example: statement "identity" must have a "description" > substatement. > > 4. testing the examples in the draft against yanglint: > - for both examples: Missing element's "namespace". (/config) > - just removing the "<config>" element envelop resolves this error. > > 5. the 2nd example uses IP address "2001:db8:a0b:12f0::1", but this SHOULD be a > domain name (e.g., foo.example.com) > > 6. in the YANG module, anywhere you have an RFC listed in a 'description' statement, > there should be a 'reference' statement for that RFC. > > 7. in the tree diagram, the leafrefs no longer indicate what they point at, they now all > just say "leafref". Did you do this on purpose, or are you using a different tree > output generator from -15? > > 8. RFC6536 is listed as a normative reference, but it probably should be informative. > > 9. Std-1003.1-2008 is listed as a normative reference, but it is not used anywhere in the document. > > 10. RFC6242 is listed as an informative reference, but it is not used anywhere in the document. > > 11. the document fails to declare its normative references to ietf-keystore and ietf-tls-client-server. > Note: you manually entered the "[RFC yyyy], and [RFC xxxx]" references… > > 12. The IANA considerations section seems asymmetric. Either put both registry insertions into > subsections, or keep them both at the top-level… > > 13. reviewing the final document against my original YD review, I have the following responses. Let's be sure to close out these items as well. Ref: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/10lo41Ud4A3ZN11 s-0gOfCe8NSE > > 1. ok > 2. better > 3. should be: s/the message/these messages/ [RFC Editor might've caught this] > 4. better > 5. still feel the same way, but no biggee > 6. better, but from 8174, you should add the part "when, and only when, they appear in all capitals, as shown here." > 7. fixed > 8. fixed > 9. you did what I asked, but the result still isn't satisfying... > 10. some improvements made in this area, but my ask wasn't among them > 11. better > 12. better, but I think the 4th line should be indented too, right? > 13. better, but I wish you called S1.3 "Tree Diagram Notation" > 14. fixed > 15. fixed > 16. fixed > 17. fine > 18. still a weird line brake here. try putting the quoted string on the next line. > 19. fixed > 20. fixed > 21. not fixed (re: yang-security-guidelines) > 22. fine > > > PS: please also be sure to follow-up with Benoit on his AD review. > > Thanks, > Kent // shepherd & yang doctor > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
