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