Subject: [Netconf] some comments on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis

From: Lou Berger <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 09:12:54 -0500

Hi,

    I have two comments on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis:

1) In general it seems that NetMod and NetConf WGs have been making good
strides at formally separating previously conflated YANG language,
module, and protocol related definitions and mechanisms.  From this
perspective, I think it important that rfc7895bis not to  even make any
normative references to any  protocol.  I think just small changes are
needed in the document to make references to 6241 and 8040 informative. 
These include:
    a) section 1.1,  delete reference to 6241 and combine with list
under 7950
    b) In case the section isn't deleted: Section 1.3, Paragraph 2,
s/MUST/are required/ in both occurrences.
    c) Update section 4 to match
https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines

2) From reading the document, notably section 2, it is unclear which
datastore(s) will contain the library module.  While we may all assume
that the answer is obvious, IMO it is important for this to be
specified. We may even find that we have different answers to this
(apparently obvious) question.

Cheers,
Lou

---

From: Ladislav Lhotka <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2017 15:44:09 +0100

> normative references to any  protocol.  I think just small changes are

+1

> (apparently obvious) question.

YANG library data (and, for that matter, "schema-mounts" data) is no regular
data but metadata decribing the available datastores and their schemas.
Therefore, the appropriate place for this information is clearly *outside* the
datastores. In RESTCONF, for example, this would simply mean a special resource
for this mandatory info.

Lada

> 
> Cheers,
> Lou
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
-- 
Ladislav Lhotka
Head, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2017 09:42:59 +0100 (CET)

Lou Berger <[email-masked]> wrote:
> normative references to any  protocol.

Note that https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines
says that the references to 6241, 8040 etc must be normative.

> I think just small changes are

Agreed, fixed in my local copy.

> s/MUST/are required/ in both occurrences.

Ok.

> https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-security-guidelines

Ok.

> (apparently obvious) question.

Ok, I'll add:

  All data nodes in "ietf-yang-library" are "config false", and thus
  accessible in the operational datastore.

/martin