Subject: [netmod] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-19: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2021 11:25:35 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format-19: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format/

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

The shepherd writeup is incomplete with respect to the first question.

All of the SHOULDs in Section 2 leave me wondering under what conditions one
might legitimately deviate from what they are saying.  Since SHOULD offers a
choice, I recommend making this more clear.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2021 12:15:55 +0200

Hi Murray,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format/
The draft mentions some SHOULD related to the file name.
     Ex: The name of the instance data file SHOULD be of the form:
For those SHOULD, we followed the RFC 7950, 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-5.2, which also 
used SHOULD

For this instance ...
To properly understand and use an instance data set, the user needs to 
know the content-schema. One of the following methods SHOULD be used:
... I don't recall why we have a SHOULD here. History I guess.
A MUST seems more appropriate and we propose to change to a MUST.

Regards, Benoit