On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 10:37 AM William Lupton <wlupton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This remark might be out of context (I haven't been following the details) but this reference to prefixes makes me wonder whether there's any way that registered URN namespaces could be regarded as valid prefixes. https://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
looks like a great solution and would be less duplication of registries
Andy
On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 at 18:28, Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:_______________________________________________On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 2:51 PM Christian Hopps <chopps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Thanks for the review! Comments inline.
> On Mar 5, 2019, at 7:26 PM, Datatracker on behalf of Elwyn Davies <ietf-secretariat-reply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
> Review result: Almost Ready
>
....
> If I read correctly, the YANG definition in s4.2 REQUIRES that all tags have a
> prefix. For clarity, it would better if this read:
> All tags MUST begin with a prefix; it is intended that this prefix SHOULD
> [or maybe 'should'] indicate
> the ownership or origination of the definition.
The intent was to not put the MUST on users. As the final arbiters of tags, users should be free to do whatever they want and not have implementations or standards superfluously block them from doing so. How about we carry the SHOULD into the typedef in the YANG model as well? That seems reasonable to me, i.e.,
typedef tag {
type string {
length "1..max";
pattern '[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9\-_]*:[\S ]+';
}
description
"A tag is a type 'string' value that does not include carriage
return, newline or tab characters. It SHOULD begin with a
standard prefix.";
I strongly agree that a prefix SHOULD be present, not MUST be present.I also think the 3 standard prefixes will be insufficient over time.(Having every organization on the planet except IETF share the prefix "vendor:"seems a bit short-sighted)Andy> S2, para 1: s/yang type/YANG type/ (I think)
>
> S2.2: s/follwing/following/
>
> S3.1, para 2:
> OLD:
> If the module definition is IETF standards track, the tags MUST also be Section
> 2.1. Thus, new modules can drive the addition of new standard tags to the IANA
> registry, and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.
>
> NEW:
> If the module is defined in an IETF standards track document, the tags MUST use
> the prefix defined in Section 2.1. Thus, definitions of new modules can drive
> the addition of new standard tags to the IANA registry defined in Section 7.2,
> and the IANA registry can serve as a check against duplication.
>
> ENDS
>
> S3.2: s/standard/IETF Standard/
>
> S3.3: It would be useful to introduce the term 'masking' used later in the YANG
> module definition.
How about:
"Tags of any kind can be assigned and removed by the user using normal
configuration mechanisms. In order to remove a tag from the
operational datastore the user adds a matching =masked-tag= entry for
a given module."
> S4.1: I think this usage of RFC 8340 makes it normative.
Covered earlier (BCP).
> S4.2, extension module-tag definition: This should contain a pointer to RFC
> 8342 which discusses the system origin concept.
Added.
Thanks,
Chris.
>
> Major issues:
>
> Minor issues:
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@xxxxxxxx
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
netmod mailing list
netmod@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
