Skip to main content

The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6020bis-14

Yes

(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2016-05-19 for -12) Unknown
I reviewed YANG 1.0 in 2010. I am glad to see YANG 1.1 in IESG review! I think this version is an improvement.

Nit:
	9.12.4.  Usage Example	
 		
 	   The following is a union of an int32 an enumeration:

Typo: int32 *and* enumeration



In response to Suresh:

Section 9.4.7:

It is not clear why the following refinement is illegal. Can you clarify?

     type my-base-str-type {
       // illegal length refinement
       length "1..999";
     }

refinements must be more restrictive, 999 > 255 (the original length limit).
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2016-05-19 for -12) Unknown
The OPS-DIR comments need to be addressed before publication.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -12) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-05-18 for -12) Unknown
Dale's Gen-ART review warrants a response.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-05-18 for -12) Unknown
Following the discussion from Stephen's comments.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-05-18 for -12) Unknown
- I'm not sure I properly understand what the rpc and action
statements really do, but can an action statement result in
sensitive information being in a place in the model that
previously only contained non-sensitive information? If so,
does that warrant a mention in the security considerations,
like the existing one about RPCs? (I mean the 3rd para of
section 17.) 

- anydata (section 7.10) is new, right? Doesn't that mean
that new kinds of stuff (that might be dangerous) can be
found in a module? So if it's true that before yang 1.1 a
parser only had to be careful to parse XML correctly, and if
the addition of anydata means that a parser (via some
extension mechanism) might now be parsing say images, (say
via ImageMagick:-) then that'd likely create new potential
vulnerabilities and might be worth a mention in section 17.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2016-05-19 for -12) Unknown
Thanks authors and Benoit for the clarifications on why this does not obsolete RFC6020.
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown