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

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 13:19:08 -0700

Ben Campbell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a few minor comments:

Substantive Comments:

§2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD have
a revision." Why not MUST? Does it ever make sense not to have a revision? What
are the consequences?

Editorial Comments:

§1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence.

§2, list item 1: "Efficient for a client to consume." - sentence fragment.
-- List item 3: Why is "NOT" in all-caps?
-- List item 6: The first sentence, while not technically a fragment, seems to
use an understood "you" as the subject. I doubt that is the intent.

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:11:14 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

Ben Campbell <[email-masked]> wrote:
> §2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library
> SHOULD have a revision." Why not MUST? Does it ever make sense not
> to have a revision? What are the consequences?

In YANG, the "revision" is formally optional.  (But for IETF modules
we have stricter rules that require a revsision.)

This bullet is part of the "Objectives" list, so I think we should
rephrase it:

OLD:

   o  revision: Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD
      have a revision.  This is derived from the most recent revision
      statement within the module or submodule.

NEW:

   o  revision: If defined in the YANG module or submodule, the
      revision is derived from the most recent revision statement
      within the module or submodule.

> §1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence.

I can't find this.  Can you quote the full sentence? 

> §2, list item 1: "Efficient for a client to consume." - sentence fragment.

NEW:

  1.  The information must be efficient for a client to consume.

> -- List item 3: Why is "NOT" in all-caps?

Unclear, now fixed.

> use an understood "you" as the subject. I doubt that is the intent.

NEW:

  6.  It must be possible to use the YANG library by schema mount

/martin

---

From: Ben Campbell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2018 15:52:28 -0500

> On Oct 11, 2018, at 3:11 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 

That works for me, thanks.

> I can't find this.  Can you quote the full sentence?

"All NETCONF servers supporting YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] are required to
   support YANG Library (see Section 5.6.4 of RFC 7950).”

Perhaps “support the YANG Library capability”?

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:41:52 +0200 (CEST)

> Perhaps “support the YANG Library capability”?

Based on another comment, this entire paragraph has been removed from
this document.  The requirement for a NETCONF server to implement this
version of the YANG library is stated in
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf (and ditto for RESTCONF).

/martin