Benoit,
There were approximately 24 changes requested from you, Kent, Robert Wilton,
and Tom Petch. I have made approximately half of them and will try to finish
another revision of the draft by Friday.
Thanks,
Clyde
On 9/27/17, 3:24 AM, "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bcla...@cisco.com> wrote:
Clyde,
Do you know your next step to progress this document?
Regards, Benoit
> I meant to say something about the .1 vs .2 difference. My comment
> assumes that it's supposed to be .1, but we of course should use
> whatever is correct.
>
> I also don't know much about that standards body.
>
> K.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2017 6:08 PM
>
>> Hi Tom,
>>
>> Thanks. The fix I'm looking for is for the 'pattern-match' leaf
>> to have a 'reference' statement to Std-1003.1-2008, and for S4.1
>> to also list Std-1003.1-2008 as a draft-level reference.
> and I am unfamiliar with that standards body so am looking for a little
> more.
>
> Is STD-nnnn always Posix or do we need to say Posix 1003 or Posix
> Std-1003 or is Std-1003 completely unrelated to Posix 1003?
>
> Is there a difference between Std-1003.1-2008 and Posix 1003.2 ie is the
> .1 or .2 significant? You want Std-1003.1; the description contains
> Posix 1003.2; the normative Reference is to Std-1003.1-2008.
>
> You pointed out that the Normative Reference is not used; well if we can
> sort out what the standard is and get the right label in Normative
> References then we can - must - include this in Section 4.1 which will
> resolve that comment of yours.
>
> The discussions last July had Clyde saying he wants Posix 1003.2 so if
> Std-1003 and Posix 1003 are the same but .1 and.2 are different, then
> you are asking for a semantic change against Clyde's wishes.
>
> I hope my confusion is sufficiently clear, at least to Clyde!
>
> Tom Petch
>
>> I was going to point out the typo "the the" as well, but figured
>> that the RFC Editor would get it.
>>
>> K. // shepherd
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
