[netmod] Re: Yangdoctors early review of draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-02

Hi Reshad, Thank you for the review. The diff to track the changes made so far can be found here: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://netmod-wg.github.io/schedule-yang/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang.txt&url_2=https://netmod-wg.github.io/schedule-yang/reshad-review/draft-iet

[netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Reshad, The current text in the bis does not change the guidance for short/moderate trees (1-5 pages, typically). The question is specifically about long trees with or without folding. Cheers, Med De : Reshad Rahman Envoyé : mercredi 2 octobre 2024 04:33 À : Lou Berger ; Kent Watsen Cc :

[netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Kent Watsen Envoyé : mardi 1 octobre 2024 22:19 À : Lou Berger Cc : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; netmod@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407...@ietf.org; Jan Lindblad (jlindbla) Objet : Re: [netmod] WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis Hi Lou, et. a

[netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Lou, * Keeping long trees in the main document is really not helpful to digest a module. I also know by experience that this raises comments, including from the IESG. * Keeping long trees that exceed 69 line max in the main or as an appendix is really hard to follow. * There are

[netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Lou, * The comment that triggered the change and companion thread where this was discussed and changes proposed can be seen at: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/-b2HX0XUK49qJB19LHu6MC0D9zc/. Please note that for html version can still include the long tree, The tooling

[netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Kent, Added a reference to 8792 for better clarity. I agree that the command does not always produce diagrams that fit into 69-columns. Such cases fall under the “exceptionally, ..” of the SHOULD. The command works without “=”. Please see https://wiki.ietf.org/group/ops/yang-review-tools.

[netmod] anydata/mandatory description RE: shepherd review for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all, A candidate update Section 4.14 is available here: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://netmod-wg.github.io/rfc8407bis/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt&url_2=https://netmod-wg.github.io/rfc8407bis/anydata-description/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt I plan to submit the

[netmod] Re: shepherd review for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Kent, Qiufang, I like Kent’s proposal. I created an issue for pyang at: https://github.com/mbj4668/pyang/issues/919. Thank you Qiufang for sharing data for IETF modules. Cheers, Med De : maqiufang (A) Envoyé : lundi 30 septembre 2024 11:11 À : Kent Watsen ; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc

[netmod] Re: shepherd review for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Re-, I was concerned more with breaking existing models (I don’t know how many are out there with anydata use). Formally speaking, RFC 7950 does not say that it must be present per the following in 7.10.1: +--+-+-+ | substatemen

[netmod] Re: shepherd review for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Re-, Great. Thanks for checking. -17 is now public : https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/17/ Cheers, Med De : maqiufang (A) Envoyé : vendredi 27 septembre 2024 11:16 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407...@ietf.org Cc : netmod@ietf.org Objet :

[netmod] Re: shepherd review for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Re-, Good points. Updated the text accordingly. Please check Diff: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt - draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt

[netmod] Re: shepherd review for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Qiufang, Thank you for the careful review. The diff to track the changes can be found here: Diff: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt - draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt

[netmod] Re: YANG module vs YANG data model

Hi Nacho, all, FWIW, you may look into the following clarification provided by the OPS AD at the time: [netmod] Terminology => YANG module versus YANG data model versus YANG model : please don't use "YANG model" any longer (ietf.org)

[netmod] Re: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review

Hi all, FWIW, the changes discussed in this thread are now implement in the public version: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/16/. I think the doc is now ready to move forward. Thanks. Cheers, Med De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Envoyé : jeudi 19 septembre 2024 07:

[netmod] Re: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review

Hi Mahesh, Agree. The link is not broken because redirection is still in place, but wiki tracs were replaced. Also updated other trac urls as you can see in the full change: https://github.com/netmod-wg/rfc8407bis/pull/66/commits/794ec08d93a4ce10588c1547b39c075b1b7d330d. Cheers, Med De : Mahe

[netmod] Re: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review

Hi Kent, Thanks for the follow-up. I went with many of your proposals. For "have to use/have mandatory/MUST use", I went for "have to use" for now. The use of normative language may be questionable as this is more about use, less of an interop matter. A full diff to track changes can be seen h

[netmod] Re: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review

Hi Kent, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Kent Watsen Envoyé : jeudi 12 septembre 2024 13:04 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : Mahesh Jethanandani ; netmod@ietf.org Objet : Re: [netmod] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review Hi Med, On Sep 12, 2024, at 3:14 AM, mohamed.bo

[netmod] Re: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review

Hi Mahesh, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Mahesh Jethanandani Envoyé : jeudi 12 septembre 2024 00:49 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : Kent Watsen ; netmod@ietf.org Objet : Re: [netmod] AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review Hi Med, The reference of QUIC is to the protoc

[netmod] Re: AD - Re: AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9644 for your review

Hi Kent, I like the NEWER better compared to the initial NEW you shared, however I think some more tweaking is needed. I understand why you cited QUIC as well, but we don’t have formally a spec for mapping with QUIC (I know there is an individual I-D). We actually don’t need to be exhaustive h

[netmod] Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Kent, Yes, I was referring to both large tree diagrams and trees with long lines. Having tree diagrams that span several pages is not convenient for readers and does not serve the purpose of having tree/subtrees in the narrative part. Splitting into small diagrams would help here. Some of th

[netmod] Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hi Qin, [Qin] Can we apply line wrapping defined in RFC8792 to tree diagram? Normally we apply it to text content in the document. 8792-folding can be exceptionally used per the following from 8407bis: Native YANG features (e.g., breaking line, "+") SHOULD be used to fit a module into the

[netmod] Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-netmod-syslog-model-32: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Re-, The tree as displayed in the draft does not actually adhere with this part in 8407bis: YANG tree diagrams provide a concise representation of a YANG module and SHOULD be included to help readers understand YANG module structure. If the complete tree diagram for a module becomes lo

[netmod] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-15.txt

available. It is a work item of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG > of the IETF. > >Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents > Containing YANG Data Models >Authors: Andy Bierman > Mohamed Boucadair > Qin Wu >Name:draf

[netmod] Re: [IANA #1373241] RE: Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Amanda, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Amanda Baber via RT > Envoyé : mardi 10 septembre 2024 04:04 > À : kent+i...@watsen.net; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > > Cc : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : [IANA #1373241] RE: [netmod] Regarding draft-ietf-netmod- > rf

[netmod] Re: [IANA #1373241] RE: Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Amanda, Good inputs. Added the follow text as a new bullet: NEW: - If a new registration uses an identifier that does not comply with the naming conventions listed in Section 4.3.1, IANA should check if a guidance to generate legal identifiers was supplied

[netmod] Re: [IANA #1373241] Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Kent, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Kent Watsen Envoyé : vendredi 6 septembre 2024 14:24 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : iana-iss...@iana.org; netmod@ietf.org Objet : Re: [IANA #1373241] [netmod] Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis Hi Med, 1) Regarding "For example, author

[netmod] Re: [IANA #1373241] RE: Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Amanda, Thanks for these inputs. OK to add 6to4 as another example. It is actually a good example as we do have two ways to spell it out in existing RFCs :-) I updated the text to better insist that the effort should be on the authors side to make the IANA task easy. Also, updated the templ

[netmod] Re: Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Kent Watsen Envoyé : mercredi 4 septembre 2024 15:29 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; Amanda Baber Cc : netmod@ietf.org; Amanda Baber via RT Objet : Re: [netmod] Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis Hi Amanda, Please find one comment

[netmod] Re: Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Kent, all, (apologies for the delay to follow-up as I was out of office) Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Kent Watsen Envoyé : dimanche 11 août 2024 20:48 À : netmod@ietf.org Objet : [netmod] Regarding draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis The minutes for the NETMOD 120 session [0] captures this

[netmod] Re: Current document status updates

Hi James, all, Here is a status update for these two I-Ds: * draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis * Changes since IETF#119 * WGLC based on -11 * Addressed comments from IANA about maintenance instructions: added a new section to make these visible to IANA * Upda

[netmod] Re: Mail regarding draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang

Hi Yingzhen, Thanks for the follow-up. Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Yingzhen Qu Envoyé : dimanche 14 juillet 2024 06:09 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-y...@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang@ietf.org Objet : Re:

[netmod] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-opsawg-ucl-acl-04.txt

the Operations and Management Area Working > Group (OPSAWG) WG of the IETF. > >Title: A YANG Data Model and RADIUS Extension for Policy- > based Network Access Control > Authors: Qiufang Ma > Qin Wu > Mohamed Boucadair > Daniel K

[netmod] Mail regarding draft-ietf-tvr-schedule-yang

Hi Authors, all, As part of our effort to check that the NETMOD Common Schedule module (draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang) common basis set for target uses, I reviewed all the I-Ds that use draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang. The review also focuses on whether the grouping are used as intended and i

[netmod] Review of draft-contreras-opsawg-scheduling-oam-tests

Hi Authors, all, As part of our effort to check that the NETMOD Common Schedule module (draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang) common basis set for target uses, I reviewed all the I-Ds that use draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang. The review also focuses on whether the grouping are used as intended and i

[netmod] Re: [IANA #1289473] Revision statements in IANA-maintained YANG modules

Hi Amanda, Thank you for the follow up. A first candidate revised version to address your comments can be seen at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1=https://netmod-wg.github.io/rfc8407bis/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.txt&url_2=https://netmod-wg.github.io/rfc8407bis/amanda-iana/draf

[netmod] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-02.txt

02.txt > > > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang-02.txt is now > available. It is a work item of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG > of the IETF. > >Title: A Common YANG Data Model for Scheduling >Authors: Qiufang Ma > Qin Wu >

[netmod] Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-11

Hi Xufeng, FWIW, all the changes indicated in my reply are now implemented in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/12/. Thanks again for your careful review. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Envoyé : mardi 18 juin 2024 09:

[netmod] Schedule Model: RFC 3231 Objects

Hi all, Even if we are not defining data nodes, https://netmod-wg.github.io/schedule-yang/draft-ietf-netmod-schedule-yang.html#name-relationship-to-the-disman- includes an assessment about how 3231 objects can be mapped to the YANG model parameters. The following one are not supported in the YA

[netmod] Schedule Model: Your comments at IETF#119/TVR

Hi Erik, At TVR@IETF119, you raised the following comment (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-119-tvr-202403200300/): == Erik Kline: sldie 5, timezones makes everything worse. datetime start is bad name. call it "utc start time". interval vs duration? possibly going to be removed, working

[netmod] Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-06

Hi Qiufang, This version looks good to me. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : maqiufang (A) > Envoyé : mardi 18 juin 2024 11:05 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; > Michal Vaško ; yang-doct...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-netmod-system-config@ietf.org; last- > c...@iet

[netmod] Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-06

Hi Qiufang, Thanks for taking care of this. I submitted right now a PR with some minor fixes (e.g., align with 8407bis reco): https://github.com/netmod-wg/system-config/pull/38 Other than that, this looks good to me. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : maqiufang (A) > Envoyé :

[netmod] Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-11

Hi Xufeng, Thank you for the review. Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Xufeng Liu via Datatracker > Envoyé : mardi 18 juin 2024 05:33 > À : yang-doct...@ietf.org > Cc : draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis@ietf.org; last- > c...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org > Objet

[netmod] Re: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-system-config-06

Hi all, On this one: > - all 'local-as' and 'peer-as' nodes are uint32, so in JSON encoding numbers > should be > used instead of strings Even if this an example, the authors may consider using "inet:as-number" rather than uint32. As I'm there, (1) the name of this leaf is weird:

[netmod] Re: WGLC on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Lou, all, As authors were also invited to share their feedback, I will share my own. I confirm that this version is ready to be sent to the IESG (modulo the point below). The document benefited from good reviews dung its development with all issues cleared as they show up. Many YANGDOTCORs w

[netmod] Re: [IANA #1289473] Revision statements in IANA-maintained YANG modules

Hi Amanda, Any update about this point? Do you still think some change is needed? Thank you. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 2024 17:18 > À : 'iana-issues-comm...@iana.org' > Objet : RE: [IANA #1289473] Revision statements i

[netmod] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-06

Hi Lou, Thank you for catching this. Please check the candidate changes here: Diff: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-08.txt - draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions.txt

[netmod] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-06

Hi Lou, Already shared on the list how -07 addresses the pending comments from Mahesh and Qiufang. I think -08 is now ready for the next step. Thanks. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Lou Berger > Envoyé : mardi 14 mai 2024 15:10 > À : NETMOD Group > Cc : NetMod WG Chairs

[netmod] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-06

Hi Qiufang, Thank you for the review. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions/07/ takes these comments into account. Please see some clarifications below. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : netmod De la part de maqiufang (A) > Envoyé : lundi 6 mai 202

[netmod] Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-06

Hi Mahesh, all, https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions/07/ has now the sets defined as reusable groupings + augment the ACL models. The structure is basically a revert back to what we used to have in -00. Cheers, Med De : netmod De la part de Mahesh Jethanandani Env

Re: [netmod] IPR on call on draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-11

Hi Kent, all, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Kent Watsen > Envoyé : mardi 30 avril 2024 00:06 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; > Andy Bierman ; Qin Wu > Cc : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : IPR on call on draft-ietf-netmod

Re: [netmod] AD review of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6991-bis-15

Hi Jürgen, all, With regards to draft-ietf-sedate-datetime-extended, we do have a related open issue about this at: https://github.com/boucadair/policy-based-network-acl/issues/74 for draft-ietf-netmod-schedule. I think that it is better to handle this as part of the 6991-bis (rather than in

Re: [netmod] [saag] draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis: YANG Security Template

Hi all, FWIW, we made some changes to the security considerations [1] since your last review. For convenience the changes to the template can be tracked at [2]. Please let us know if you have any comment about the updated guidance. Thank you. Cheers, Med [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc

Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all, These proposed changes are now implemented in the public version. Cheers, Med De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Envoyé : mercredi 20 mars 2024 23:13 À : netmod@ietf.org Objet : RE: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis Hi all, After reviewing

Re: [netmod] Adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04

Hi all, I support this work, obviously. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : netmod De la part de Kent Watsen > Envoyé : mardi 26 mars 2024 16:50 > À : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : [netmod] Adoption call for draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04 > > NETMOD WG, > > This email begins a 2-

Re: [netmod] IPR Call on draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04

Hi Kent, all, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Med De : Kent Watsen Envoyé : mardi 26 mars 2024 00:45 À : maqiufang (A) ; Qin Wu ; BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; Daniel King Cc : netmod@ietf.org Objet : IPR Call on draft-ma-opsawg-schedule-yang-04 [This draft

Re: [netmod] Regrading IPR for draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-06

Hi Lou, all, No, I'm not aware of any IPR that applies to this draft. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Lou Berger > Envoyé : lundi 25 mars 2024 23:00 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET ; > samier.barguilgiraldo@telefonica.com; OSCAR GONZALEZ DE DIOS > ; Qin Wu > Cc : NETMOD

Re: [netmod] IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all, FWIW, the proposed changes to address the point mentioned by Mahesh [1] can be seen at: description text by boucadair · Pull Request #51 · boucadair/rfc8407bis (github.com) For convenience, the changes can be tracked here: Diff: d

Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all, After reviewing all the feedback so far, I modified the proposed change as follows: NEW: Prefix values SHOULD be short but meaningful to the intended user. Prefix values SHOULD NOT conflict with known modules that have been previously published. The full change can be seen here

Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Re-, I’m not sure to agree with your last statement, Andy. The reality is that the OLD reco is inducing many cycles and waste of time for no obvious technical reason: see an example here https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/teas/eknpfAZIb9gX7GvUN1UoByCf5e4/ Let’s save the authors time with a

Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Chris, > Right.. I don't understand the need for uniqueness even, since one > specifies a prefix when importing other modules. When importing, one should follow this part from 7550: To improve readability of YANG modules, the prefix defined by a module SHOULD be used when the module is

Re: [netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Jürgen, I agree this is marginal, but the proposed change is mainly to ensure some consistency and to some extend avoid collision with other SDOs. In the meantime, the initial reco is not technically justified :-) Please note that the initial reco is not always followed in practice: for ex

[netmod] On prefixes again RE: IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Andy, (changing the subject to ease tracking this) The thread I was referring is: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/6VkSrroaxwXHSI19Jj0j-tbFCjA/ I do personally think that it is a good guidance to prefix IETF modules with “ietf-“ and IANA-maintained ones with “iana-‘. This is con

[netmod] IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi all, * A candidate -10 is ready to address 3 comments from Jan: * Long trees * Updated security template * Minor tweaks to Section 3.8 * The changes circulated on the list can be seen here: Compare Editor's Copy to Datatracker

[netmod] IETF#119 I-D Status: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions

Hi all, Here is a brief status of this I-D: * -03: was in the WGLC (Dec 2023) * -04/06: addressed comments received from Mahesh, e.g., * Fix some broken "when" statements * Transform some normative language into YANG statements * Grouped the examples in an appendix

Re: [netmod] On prefixes RE: Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Hi Jürgen, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : netmod De la part de Jürgen Schönwälder > Envoyé : lundi 4 mars 2024 20:44 > À : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [netmod] On prefixes RE: Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod- > rfc8407bis > > Hi, > > the statement "sh

Re: [netmod] Long trees RE: Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

etf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> Objet : I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF. Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents

[netmod] On prefixes RE: Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

etf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF. Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models Authors: Andy Bierman Mohamed Bou

Re: [netmod] Long trees RE: Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

nou...@ietf.org<mailto:i-d-annou...@ietf.org> Cc : netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> Objet : I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt Internet-Draft draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt is now available. It is a work item of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF.

Re: [netmod] Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

rk Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF. Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models Authors: Andy Bierman Mohamed Boucadair Qin Wu Name:draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt Pages: 84 Dates: 2024-02-28 Abstract: This memo

Re: [netmod] Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

or Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models Authors: Andy Bierman Mohamed Boucadair Qin Wu Name:draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt Pages: 84 Dates: 2024-02-28 Abstract: This memo provides guidelines for authors and reviewers of specificat

[netmod] Long trees RE: Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

em of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF. Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents Containing YANG Data Models Authors: Andy Bierman Mohamed Boucadair Qin Wu Name:draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt Pages: 84 Dates: 2024-02-28 Abstr

[netmod] Next steps for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

of the Network Modeling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF. > >Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents > Containing YANG Data Models > Authors: Andy Bierman > Mohamed Boucadair > Qin Wu >Name:draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-09.txt

Re: [netmod] Rfc8407 - what does this text mean?

Hi Andy, We need to be careful here to avoid redundant guidance. For example, the guidance you are suggesting is already covered in 4.23. It even includes guidance for motivating exceptions: Designers SHOULD describe and justify any NMDA exceptions in detail, such as the use of separate s

Re: [netmod] Rfc8407 - what does this text mean?

Hi Andy, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Andy Bierman Envoyé : mardi 20 février 2024 18:19 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : Kent Watsen ; netmod@ietf.org Objet : Re: [netmod] Rfc8407 - what does this text mean? On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:39 PM mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>>

Re: [netmod] Rfc8407 - what does this text mean?

Hi Andy, De : Andy Bierman Envoyé : mardi 20 février 2024 18:19 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : Kent Watsen ; netmod@ietf.org Objet : Re: [netmod] Rfc8407 - what does this text mean? On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:39 PM mailto:mohamed.boucad...@orange.com>> wrote: Hi all, I updated the

Re: [netmod] Rfc8407 - what does this text mean?

Hi all, I updated the PR to use a wording aligned with 4.23: NEW: If the document contains a temporary non-NMDA (Network Management Datastore Architecture) [RFC8342], then the Introduction section should mention this fact with the reasoning that motivated that design. Refer to Sectio

Re: [netmod] Rfc8407 - what does this text mean?

Hi Kent, all, I also think that highlighting the exceptions + motivate them makes sense here. A PR to fix that can be seen at [2]. FWIW, the OLD text was added draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6087bis-17 as per a comment in the AD review [2]. Cheers, Med [1] https://author-tools.ietf.org/api/iddiff?url_1

Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-08.txt

deling (NETMOD) WG of the IETF. > >Title: Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers of Documents > Containing YANG Data Models >Authors: Mohamed Boucadair > Qin Wu >Name:draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-08.txt >Pages: 84 >Dates: 2024-02-16

Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis

Hi all, This is a nudge about this pending issue. Here is the main proposed reco: NEW: Some modules use "case + when" construct but provide duplicated information (e.g., the "when" statements are constraining a single case in the choice as shown in the example below). Such constructs

Re: [netmod] rfc8407bis IANA guidance (enums vs identities)

Hi Kent, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Kent Watsen Envoyé : jeudi 8 février 2024 16:55 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : netmod@ietf.org Objet : Re: [netmod] rfc8407bis IANA guidance (enums vs identities) Hi Mohamad, Thanks for the response. Some thoughts below. K On Feb 8, 2024

Re: [netmod] rfc8407bis IANA guidance (enums vs identities)

Re-, I got an offline comment that there is an ambiguity about how to interpret "If the set of values is fixed and" part of 4.11.1. In order to make the guidance more explicit, I propose we also add the following: NEW: If the set of the data type contents requires some hierarchy or the a

Re: [netmod] rfc8407bis IANA guidance (enums vs identities)

Hi Kent, all, Let's me also provide some background and explain why we are not using any normative language for enum vs identities. We used to have this text in early versions: This recommendation takes precedence over the behavior in Section 4.11.1 of [RFC8407] for IANA-maintained module

Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 (7791)

Hi all, Here is an update on the initial comments from Dale: > > 1) It would be helpful if the beginning of the template contained a > > reference to RFC 8407 to provide a pointer back to where the > templated > > section of Yang module definitions was instantiated from. Perhaps > > starting th

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-03

Hi Mahesh, all, FWIW, we submitted an updated version of the draft to address the pending points from your reviews. A diff to track the changes vs. -04 can be seen at: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-04&url2=draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-06&difftype=

Re: [netmod] rfc8407bis IANA module identifier name

Hi Qin, all, Thanks. As you know, rfc8407bis covers also considerations for when a script is used to generate the module. Aaah, I have a minor comment about draft-ietf-netconf-ssh-client-server, I see that it is not consistent with the bis as it uses folding while this can be avoided as per:

Re: [netmod] rfc8407bis IANA module identifier name

Hi Kent, all, Thanks for raising this point. For registries where a name is available, mirroring it in the YANG module would be the right approach. That's would also be consistent with the approach in Section 4.30.3.2. FWIW, here is an attempt to address your comments: https://author-tools.ie

Re: [netmod] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8407 (7791)

Hi Dale, all, I don't think filling an erratum is appropriate here given that the original text is not broken (including the URL). I suggest to reject it. However, text enhancements can be considered as part of https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis/. Let's have that d

Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis

Hi Italo, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I do still think there is a value in providing some guidance for such constructs. I updated the PR with the example you provided as I find it better that the one we used to have. Feel free to review and proposed changes to the proposed PR at: https:

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-03

Hi Mahesh, Thanks for the follow-up. Made some changes as you can see at https://boucadair.github.io/enhanced-acl-netmod/#go.draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions.diff. Please see inline for more context. Cheers, Med Orange Restricted De : Mahesh Jethanandani Envoyé : mercredi 20 décembre 2023 1

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Operational State usage of YANG choices and constraints (fix draft address)

Hi Mahesh, Please see inline. Cheers, Med De : Mahesh Jethanandani Envoyé : lundi 22 janvier 2024 17:43 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET Cc : Acee Lindem ; YANG Doctors ; netmod@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407...@ietf.org Objet : Re: [yang-doctors] [netmod] Operational State usage of YANG

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Operational State usage of YANG choices and constraints (fix draft address)

Re-, I’m afraid that if we call out “mandatory” here, we will need to do the same for all the items listed in rfc8342#section-5.3: Only semantic constraints MAY be violated. These are the YANG "when", "must", "mandatory", "unique", "min-elements", and "max-elements" statements; and the

Re: [netmod] [yang-doctors] Operational State usage of YANG choices and constraints (fix draft address)

Hi Acee, > I think these points are worth addressing in RFC8407 BIS. We do already have the following in the bis, which I think covers your initial question about “mandatory true” data nodes for operational state”: Section 8.1 of [RFC7950] includes a provision for defining a constraint on

Re: [netmod] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-03

Hi Mahesh, all, Thank you for the review and comments. We just posed draft-ietf-netmod-acl-extensions-04. Please see more context inline. Cheers, Med De : netmod De la part de Mahesh Jethanandani Envoyé : mardi 5 décembre 2023 23:09 À : Lou Berger Cc : NETMOD Group ; NetMod WG Chairs Objet

Re: [netmod] [IANA #1291942] RE: Early review: draft-boucadair-netmod-rfc8407bis (IETF 117)

Hi all, The changes indicated below are now implemented in the public version: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-06. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Envoyé : jeudi 14 décembre 2023 07:39 > À : netmod@ietf.org >

Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis

Re-, > To be clear, I think the paragraph: > >Some modules use "case + when" construct such as shown in the > example >below. Such a construct MUST be avoided by removing the > "when" >statement or using a "container" outside the "choice". > > and the example that follows should be

Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis

Hi Martin, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Martin Björklund > Envoyé : jeudi 14 décembre 2023 21:48 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis > > Hi, > > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: >

Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis

Hi Martin, all, Please remember that RFC8407 includes already the following: == "when" statement evaluation is generally more expensive than "if-feature" or "choice" statements == I understand that you may have a concern with the MUST NOT language, but we do need some guidance for such constra

[netmod] TR: [IANA #1291942] RE: Early review: draft-boucadair-netmod-rfc8407bis (IETF 117)

Hi all, FWIW, I checked with IANA whether the changes [1] made to address the comment from Martin [2] are clear enough. Please see below. Unless I hear any further comments on these changes, I will proceed with the submission of the new version early next week. Cheers, Med [1]: https://auth

Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis

Re-, Please see inline. Cheers, Med > -Message d'origine- > De : Martin Björklund > Envoyé : vendredi 8 décembre 2023 17:35 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : Re: [netmod] case + when in 8407bis > > mohamed.boucad...@orange.com wrote: > > Re-, > > > >

Re: [netmod] URLs from where to retrieve the latest version of an IANA module RE: New guidelines for IANA in draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis

Re-, > -Message d'origine- > De : Martin Björklund > Envoyé : vendredi 8 décembre 2023 17:31 > À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET > Cc : netmod@ietf.org > Objet : Re: URLs from where to retrieve the latest version of an IANA > module RE: [netmod] New guidelines for IANA in draft-ietf-netm

  1   2   >