ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Gen-ART LC review of draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-07

2010-04-13 08:59:35
Thanks, this addresses all of my concerns. Additional comments below. 

On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:55 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 10:59:36PM +0200, Ben Campbell wrote:
I have been selected as the General Area Review Team (Gen-ART)
reviewer for this draft (for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Thanks for your review. I will followup on your comments below, CCing
the WG mailing list so that the WG sees the exchange between us.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-netmod-yang-types-07
Reviewer: Ben Campbell
Review Date: 2010-04-06
IETF LC End Date: 2010-04-09
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a proposed standard. 
There are a few minor issues that might should be considered prior to 
publication.

Major issues: None.

Minor issues:



[...]

-- Section 4, domain-name, description, paragraph 2: "...systems that want 
to store host names in
      schema nodes using the domain-name type are recommended to
      adhere to this stricter standard to ensure interoperability."

should "recommended" be normative?

I think I would leave it lowercase unless someone can provide a
reference where a normative version of the recommendation to follow
RFC 952 rules is written down. Our goal in general is to represent
what the underlying technology (DNS in this case) specifies, it is not
our goal to be more strict than the underlying specifications.


Okay.


[...]

-- date-and-time, pattern and description:

Which is the normative description for date-and-time? The ABNF in
the description, or the pattern attribute? I assume the second, but
fear the presence of ABNF will make others assume the first.

Ideally, they should be consistent - and I hope they are. The ABNF is
more detailed - if you read the comments - and copied from RFC 3339.
If we make a change, we should completely remove the ABNF from the
description and simply leave the pointer to RFC 3339, e.g.

 For a more detailed description, see section 5.6 of RFC 3336.

Since the ABNF is copied, this does not really change much unless RFC
3336 gets updated perhaps. For now, I have left things as they are but
I am open to be convinced to remove the ABNF if someone feels strongly
about this.

I don't feel strongly--it was just a mild general concern that duplicate 
_normative_ text can lead to future errors if, as you say, the RFC gets 
updated. But if you see value in having the ABNF in the description, that's 
okay with me. At the most, it might be worth putting a comment in the 
description to see the RFC for the full normative definition.

[...]

Thanks!

Ben.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>