Hi Kent Two quick replies, inline, <ALEX>
Thanks --- Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 11:30 AM > To: Alexander Clemm <lud...@clemm.org>; netmod@ietf.org > Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087...@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14 > > Hi Alex, > > > (Resending, apologies in case of duplicates) > > Resending? This is the first time I'm seeing these. Did you send them when > the Last Call was open before? The Last Call closed a couple weeks ago ;) <ALEX> I suspected there was a problem with my mailer. So I am glad I resent them. No, the comments are "fresh", not from weeks ago </ALEX> > > I don't want to reopen rfc6087bis for anything less than Errata at this point > (or > promoting it to a BCP, but that's a different thing altogether). It seems > that > some of your suggestions could go into the new "guidelines-next" issue > tracker [1]. We may also consider adding information to the FAQ [2]. > Regarding Security Considerations, I think that a "node" can be the root of a > subtree, and the rubbery- ness is likely from [3] and can be addressed > separately. <ALEX> I saw other comments on the list just yesterday, and was encouraged off-line to send my comments and also to review more documents;-) so I just went ahead and did. Sure, I have no problems to not hold up the draft - as commented on the other thread, I would like to see drafts progress faster, not slower, even if it means some churn further down the road. That said, I do think that guidelines re: RPC modeling, and extending/augmenting groupings are currently lacking and needing improvement at some point. Re: rubbery-ness, no, this is taken from this draft, not from 6087. --- Alex </ALEX> > > [1] https://github.com/netmod-wg/guidelines-next/issues > [2] https://github.com/netmod-wg/FAQ/wiki > [3] http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/ops/trac/wiki/yang-security-guidelines > > What do you think? > > Kent // shepherd > > > > I have reviewed some parts of the draft and have just a few comments as > well: > > - One area where guidelines are missing, but where guidance would > be > needed, concerns how to model return values from RPCs, as well as how to > model the handling of RPC error conditions. This is an area where I think > YANG itself could need some improvement, and in its absence good > guidelines would be even more important. > - It would be also useful to provide guidelines regarding how to > augment/extend groupings. This is a common scenario and what to do is not > necessarily intuitive, so I am sure many users would appreciate guidelines > here. > - Section 3.4: It would be good to provide a guideline regarding lines > that exceed 70 columns (from the pyang tree output), at least mention that > authors need to manually address this issue > - Section 3.7: Personally, I think the security considerations as > currently stated, while well-intended, introduce a bit too much red tape. > Specifically, this concerns having to list nodes individually - this can lead > to > defining many "trees" while missing the "forest". The guidelines are a bit > "rubbery" here, by the way, stating that data nodes MUST be individually > listed and discussed, at the same time only if they "could be especially > disruptive" - what does that mean - so maybe the requirement should simply > be a "SHOULD" here? > - Observation: there is no mention/guideline canonical order of YANG > statements. > > Thanks > --- Alex > > -----Original Message----- > From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen > Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 11:22 AM > To: netmod@ietf.org > Cc: netmod-cha...@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087...@ietf.org > Subject: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-14 > > > This starts a two-week working group last call on: > > Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of YANG Data Model Documents > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dietf-2Dnetmod-2Drfc6087bis- > 2D14&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m > =iR7m1fbjxuH4HW0Ws7SS- > jWBlHsFIVCZEbG2vxMtmno&s=mQRtxCYVsN0ttmets8w-8a- > VBh3vh9rJj_NJVhtGa4k&e= > > Please send email to the list indicating your support or concerns. > > We are particularly interested in statements of the form: > * I have reviewed this draft and found no issues. > * I have reviewed this draft and found the following issues: ... > > > Thank you, > NETMOD WG Chairs > > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuh > r6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m > =iR7m1fbjxuH4HW0Ws7SS- > jWBlHsFIVCZEbG2vxMtmno&s=NeFF02cR18ZWLxBX0kSsjAolx0QUWN4ChF3_ > GJc9WMc&e= > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
