Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Clyde
Sorry for being unclear
OLD
This module imports typedefs from [RFC6021], [RFC7223], groupings
from [RFC ], and [RFC ], and it references [RFC5424],
[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], and [RFC5848].
NEW
This module imports typedefs from [RFC6021], [RFC7223], groupings
from [RFC ], and [RFC ], and it references [RFC5424],
[RFC5425], [RFC5426], [RFC6587], [RFC5848], and
[Std-1003.1-2008].
would satisfy me.
Tom Petch
- Original Message -
From: "Clyde Wildes (cwildes)"
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 5:05 PM
> Tom,
>
> This does not satisfy the reference requirement?
>
> leaf pattern-match {
> if-feature select-match;
> type string;
> description
> "This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression
> string that can be used to select a syslog message for
> logging. The match is performed on the SYSLOG-MSG field.";
> reference
> "RFC 5424: The Syslog Protocol
> Std-1003.1-2008 Regular Expressions";
> }
>
> Please help me understand what more you want.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Clyde
>
> On 12/14/17, 3:55 AM, "t.petch" wrote:
>
> 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)"
> To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" ; "Kent Watsen"
> ; "t.petch" ;
>
> Cc:
> 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)"
> 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"
> > > 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- 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 confu
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Tom,
This does not satisfy the reference requirement?
leaf pattern-match {
if-feature select-match;
type string;
description
"This leaf describes a Posix 1003.2 regular expression
string that can be used to select a syslog message for
logging. The match is performed on the SYSLOG-MSG field.";
reference
"RFC 5424: The Syslog Protocol
Std-1003.1-2008 Regular Expressions";
}
Please help me understand what more you want.
Thanks,
Clyde
On 12/14/17, 3:55 AM, "t.petch" wrote:
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)"
To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" ; "Kent Watsen"
; "t.petch" ;
Cc:
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)"
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"
> > 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- 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 d
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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)" To: "Benoit Claise (bclaise)" ; "Kent Watsen" ; "t.petch" ; Cc: 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)" 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" > > 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- 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" > >> To: > >> Cc: > >> Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 10:50 PM > >> Subject: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues > >> > >> > >>> Clyde, all, > >>> > >>> In reviewing the draft for Shephe
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)" 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" > 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- 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" >> To: >> Cc: >> 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 >> "@-mm-dd" in its name >>> 3. neither `pyang` nor `yanglint` found any errors with >> ietf-syslog.yang.pyang says >>>for vendor-syslog-ty
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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" 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- 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" To: Cc: 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 "@-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 "" 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
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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" 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- 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" > To: > Cc: > 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 > "@-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 "" 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.
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
- Original Message - From: "Kent Watsen" 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- 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" > To: > Cc: > 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 > "@-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 "" 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-
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Good suggestion, Rob. This might also have come up in the SecDir review. Separately, Juergen had a suggestion to add an "observation" (since a "warning" seems too strong) that use of POSIX regex precludes UTF8 support. Makes sense? FWIW, the module is fine as is, since the regex is under a feature statement, which allows a future effort add another regex-feature if ever needed. Clyde, since these are not technical changes, and assuming that there is no objection, you can make these two tweaks as well. Otherwise, I can add notes about these in the shepherd writeup. Kent -- Hi Kent, Clyde, Does the "pattern-match" leaf need to be explicitly pulled out in security considerations? Allowing a client to provide an arbitrary regex could potentially cause a regex engine to overflow its stack and crash. An example of an regex overflow is described here: http://www.regular-expressions.info/catastrophic.html Thanks, Rob On 13/09/2017 18:08, Kent Watsen wrote: > 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. > > 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" > To: > Cc: > 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 > "@-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 "" 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 ], and [RFC ]" > references… >> 12
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
Hi Kent, Clyde, Does the "pattern-match" leaf need to be explicitly pulled out in security considerations? Allowing a client to provide an arbitrary regex could potentially cause a regex engine to overflow its stack and crash. An example of an regex overflow is described here: http://www.regular-expressions.info/catastrophic.html Thanks, Rob On 13/09/2017 18:08, Kent Watsen wrote: 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. 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" To: Cc: 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 "@-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 "" 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 ], and [RFC ]" 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 the
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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. 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" To: Cc: 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 "@-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 "" 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 ], and [RFC ]" 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-
Re: [netmod] syslog-model-17 shepherd writeup issues -references
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" To: Cc: 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 "@-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 "" 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 ], and [RFC ]" 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 > __
