Subject: [netmod] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: (with COMMENT)

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:30:03 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Substantive:

§3.3, 4th paragraph: The MUST NOT seems like a statement of fact -- if no
schema is mounted, it doesn't seem possible for it to include anything.

§5, last paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? Would it ever make
sense to violate this?

§9: The model includes RFC 2119 boilerplate, but the document itself uses the
newer RFC 8174 boilerplate. Is it normal to include the normative keyword
boilerplate in the model? If so, it should probably match that of the
containing document.

Editorial:

§1, list item 2: "... and is stable as YANG library information of the server."
Assuming you mean specific YANG library information rather than the general
concept, there is a missing article before "YANG". (This pattern repeats a few
time throughout the document.)

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:23:36 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-schema-mount/

Right, so this MUST NOT is directed to an implementor.  If you think
it is stating the obvious, I'd be happy to modify this to maybe "does
not". 

> §5, last paragraph: Why is the SHOULD NOT not a MUST NOT? Would it ever make

Probably not, but it could depend on how the mount point is supposed
to be used.  Maybe it is used in such a way that mounted rpcs are not
applicable.

> boilerplate in the model?

No, but in some cases models use 2119 language w/o the boilerplate and
since models have a life on their own outside the RFC, we thought that
it would be a good idea to clarify the intention by including the
boilerplate.

> If so, it should probably match that of the
> containing document.

Yes, fixed.

> time throughout the document.)

Yes, fixed.

/martin

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:47:46 -0500

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 3:23 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Ben Campbell <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> not”.

I guess it comes down to whether it is reasonably possible for an implementor to get it wrong :-)

> to be used.  Maybe it is used in such a way that mounted rpcs are not

Okay. Some guidance to that effect in the document would be helpful.

> it would be a good idea to clarify the intention by including the

Okay.

>> If so, it should probably match that of the

Thanks!