Subject: [Netconf] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 17:59:23 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: 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-netconf-rfc7895bis/

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

Thanks for the work everyone did on this document.

ID Nits reports:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)
  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page 16:

>      leaf checksum {
>        type string;
>        mandatory true;
>        description
>          "A server-generated checksum of the contents of the
>           'yang-library' tree.  The server MUST change the value of
>           this leaf if the information represented by the
>           'yang-library' tree, except 'yang-library/checksum', has
>           changed.";

I suspect that changing the name of this node in the tree would be disruptive
at this point in time, but this is clearly not a checksum ("There is no
requirement that the same information always results in the same 'checksum'
value"). I would suggest updating the description to use the term "version
identifier" or something similar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§8.2:

>  [RFC8340]  Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams",
>             BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018,
>             <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>.

Since this document is required to understand the syntax used in the tree
diagrams used by this document, it should be normative rather than informative.

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 20:02:23 -0500

> diagrams used by this document, it should be normative rather than informative.

I just realized that my comment above is unreadably ambiguous. What I 
meant to say was:

Since RFC 8340 is required to understand the syntax used in the tree 
diagrams
in draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis, RFC 8340 should be normative rather
than informative.

/a

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 11:02:16 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis/

Fixed.

Since so many people brought this up, I will go back to WG and propose
a name change for this leaf.  "YANG library content version
identifier" or "leaf version-id" for short.

This has been discussed in the WG (NETMOD, who produced RFC 8340), and
the conclusion was to have the tree diagram reference as an
Informative reference.  The diagrams are a way to illustrate the
structure of the YANG module.  The YANG module is the authoritative
source.  You will find this in all YANG RFCs > 8340, and all current
drafts.  (except I just found that 8341 is missing the reference
completely...)

/martin

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:36:04 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

After discussion among the authors and in the WG, the name "checksum"
has now been changed to "YANG library content identifier", or
"content-id" for short.

I have uploaded a new version of the draft with this change (and also
a new version of the dependant document
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf)

/martin

---

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 09:51:34 -0500

Thanks!

/a