Dear all,

Thank you for this important document.
I've been spending quite some time trying to relay feedback seen on multiple fronts.
This is part 1 of the review, till section 4.21


-

   This document defines a set of usage guidelines for Standards Track
   documents containing [RFC7950 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>] data 
models.

This is not inline with:
   This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.
   These modules SHOULD be written using the YANG 1.1 [RFC7950 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>] syntax.
   YANG 1.0 [RFC6020 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020>] syntax MAY be used 
if no YANG 1.1 constructs or
   semantics are needed in the module.

So it should be changed to
   This document defines a set of usage guidelines for Standards Track
   documents containing YANG 1.1 [RFC7950 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>] and YANG 1.0 [RFC6020] data models.

Similarly in section 4
OLD:
Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST comply with all
   syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG [RFC7950 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>].

NEW:
   Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications MUST comply with all
   syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG 1.1 [RFC7950 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>]. See the exception
   for YANG 1.0 in section 3.6

Note that I tried to add some new text around the following sentence but that 
paragraph became clumsy.
   Alternatively,
   if YANG 1.0 is used, then Modules in IETF Standards Track specifications
   MUST comply with all syntactic and semantic requirements of YANG 1.0 
[RFC6020].

Finally, in section 3.6, I would add a sentence to this paragraph
   This section contains the module(s) defined by the specification.
   These modules SHOULD be written using the YANG 1.1 [RFC7950 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950>] syntax.
   YANG 1.0 [RFC6020 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6020>] syntax MAY be used 
if no YANG 1.1 constructs or
   semantics are needed in the module.

The sentence such as:
   if any the imported YANG modules is based on YANG 1.1, the main YANG
   module MUST also be written in YANG 1.1.

 - section 3, editorial:
   There are three usage scenarios for YANG that can appear in an
   Internet-Draft or RFC:

   o  normative module or submodule

   o  example module or submodule

   o  example YANG fragment not part of any module or submodule

   The guidelines in this document refer mainly to a normative_complete_
   module or submodule, but may be applicable to example modules and
   YANG fragments as well.

Either add "complete" to "o  normative module or submodule)" and be consistent 
throughout the document,
or remove it from the last sentence.


- section 3.2

   The "<CODE BEGINS>" tag SHOULD be followed by a string identifying
   the file name specified inSection 5.2 of [RFC7950] 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-5.2>.  The name string
   form that includes the revision-date SHOULD be used.  The following
   example is for the '2010-01-18' revision of the 'ietf-foo' module:

   <CODE BEGINS> file "ietf-...@2016-03-20.yang"

I would add that both revision versions (on the <CODE BEGINS> and in the 
module) MUST match.
I ran into all sort of tooling issues because of such discrepancies.

- section 3.2.1
Add "see section 4.9 regarding the namespace guidelines for example modules"

- The following in paragraph in section 3.3 seems misplaced.

       If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a normative reference to the
       YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be provided for each diagram.
       (Refer to the example in the next section.)

It should be in section 3.4.
Btw, no need to have the specifications for each diagram!
Also, we want to add some guidelines on how to reference the tree diagram convention
For ex: no need to copy over the conventions
Basically, we just need: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03#section-1.3

PROPOSAL (replacing the previous paragraph)

       If YANG tree diagrams are used, then a normative reference to the
       YANG tree diagrams specification MUST be provided. As an example 
guideline
       (from 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03#section-1.3),
       here is a subsection in the terminology section

       Tree Diagrams

       Tree diagrams used in this document follow the notation defined in
       [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams
   
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams>].

- section 3.5
You should add a good example to illustrate the second paragraph (Based on some previous feedback, YANG module designer wants to work from examples) I would suggest to add https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8022bis-09#section-2.3


- section 3.6, editorial
OLD:

  Note that all YANG statements within a YANG module are considered
   normative, if the module itself is considered normative, and not an
   example module.
NEW:

  Note that all YANG statements within a YANG module are considered
   normative, if the module itself is considered normative, and not an
   example module or a example YANG fragment.

- section 3.6

   Example YANG modules MUST NOT contain any normative text, including
   any reserved words from [RFC2119 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>].

I guess it applies also to the "example YANG fragments"

- section 3.10
Mention yanglint.
yanglint validates xpath, while pyang doesn't.

- section 3.11
You might consider the addition of xym https://github.com/xym-tool/xym

- section 3.12
mention that the examples MUST be validated.
Pointing to the tool would be a welcome addition.

- section 4.6.x
You should really mention a common mistake about the missing 
derived-from-or-self(), flagged in many YANG doctor reviews::
You should explain the applicability: identity augmentation.

- section 4.7 "Lifecycle Management"
    The status statement MUST be present if its value is 'deprecated' or
   'obsolete'.

I've been confused for a little, thinking this section was about the IETF 
document lifecyle management and the obsolete document tag.
Proposal: "Objects Lifecycle Management" or "YANG Objects Lifecycle Management"
    The YANG objects status statement MUST be present if its value is 
'deprecated' or
   'obsolete'.
- section 4.8
   The contact statement MUST be present.  If the module is contained in
   a document intended for Standards Track status, then the working
   group web and mailing information MUST be present, and the main
   document author or editor contact information SHOULD be present.  If
   additional authors or editors exist, their contact information MAY be
   present.


I would add: No need to include the WG chair contacts.

- section 4.10

       The separation of configuration data and operational state SHOULD be
       considered carefully.  It is sometimes useful to define separate top-
       level containers for configuration and non-configuration data.  For
       some existing top-level data nodes, configuration data was not in
       scope, so only one container representing operational state was
       created.

What about NMDA?
This section is not inline with 4.23.3
Btw, in case a YANG supports NMDA , RFC6087bis should include the guideline is 
that it must be clearly mentioned.
The example of the abstract in 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc7223bis-03 could be mentioned.
   The YANG model in this document conforms to the Network Management
   Datastore Architecture defined in I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores.


In the same section about "top-level data definitions", any guidelines in 
connection with https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-rtgwg-lne-model/ and schema 
mount?
Too early?

In section 4.23, add the [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-16#ref-I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores>] reference next to NMDA
In section 4.23.3
OLD:
(b) For published models, the model should be republished with an
   NMDA-compatible structure, deprecating non-NMDA constructs.  For
   example, the "ietf-interfaces" model in [RFC7223 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7223>] will be
   restructured as an NMDA-compatible model.

NEW:
(b) For published models, the model should be republished with an
   NMDA-compatible structure, deprecating non-NMDA constructs.  For
   example, the "ietf-interfaces" model in [RFC7223 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7223>] has been
   restructured as an NMDA-compatible model in [RFC7223bis].

I believe [I-D.ietf-netmod-revised-datastores] should a normative reference

- section 4.14.2

Something wrong with:
   -top-level siblings are not ordered -top-level siblings not are not
   static, and depends on the modules that are loaded

- section 4.17
Discussing with YANG doctors that a feature-per-leaf is most likely the wrong 
approach, Jürgen came up with this.

OLD

   The YANG "feature" statement is used to define a label for a set of
   optional functionality within a module.  The "if-feature" statement
   is used in the YANG statements associated with a feature.

   The set of YANG features available in a module should be considered
   carefully.  The description-stmt within a feature-stmt MUST specify
   any interactions with other features.

   If there is a large set of objects...

NEW

   The YANG "feature" statement is used to define a label for a set of
   optional functionality within a module.  The "if-feature" statement
   is used in the YANG statements associated with a feature.  The
   description-stmt within a feature-stmt MUST specify any
   interactions with other features.

   The set of YANG features defined in a module should be considered
   carefully. Very fine granular features increase interoperability
   complexity and should be avoided. A likely misuse of the feature
   mechanism is the tagging of individual leafs (e.g., counters) with
   separate features.

   If there is a large set of objects...

back to section 4.5
   If a data definition is optional, depending on server support for a
   NETCONF or RESTCONF protocol capability, then a YANG 'feature'
   statement SHOULD be defined to indicate that the NETCONF or RESTCONF
   capability is supported within the data model.

NEW:
    If a data definition is optional which depends on server support then
    a YANG 'feature' statement SHOULD be defined.  The defined 'feature'
    SHOULD then be used in the conditional 'if-feature' statement
    referencing the optional data definition.

This is currently under discussion with the YANG doctors.

Regards, Benoit



_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

Reply via email to