Clyde A quick glance at -18 shows that there is now a Normative Reference for Posix - good- but I do not see it referenced - not so good:-(
I think that there needs to be a reference in 4.1 Tom Petch ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)" <cwil...@cisco.com> To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" <bcla...@cisco.com>; "Kent Watsen" <kwat...@juniper.net>; "t.petch" <ie...@btconnect.com>; <netmod@ietf.org> Cc: <draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-mo...@ietf.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 5:26 PM Subject: Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references > 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
