Common YANG Data Types
RFC 6991

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Benoît Claise) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2013-05-15 for -02)
No email
send info
Regarding the derived-type issue raised for IP address types in the Gen-ART review: I would probably have reacted similarly to what Joel said. Please consider adding a comment that helps clarify the issue to new readers.

(Richard Barnes) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2013-05-15 for -02)
No email
send info
My question is for the INT and OPS ADs, not for the shepherd or authors.

This isn't REMOTELY a blocking comment for draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis, but while looking at this draft, I noticed text that was carried over from RFC 6021, that said this (and it appears a couple of times):

         The canonical format of IPv6 addresses uses the compressed
         format described in RFC 4291, Section 2.2, item 2 with the
         following additional rules: the :: substitution must be
         applied to the longest sequence of all-zero 16-bit chunks
         in an IPv6 address.  If there is a tie, the first sequence
         of all-zero 16-bit chunks is replaced by ::.  Single
         all-zero 16-bit chunks are not compressed.  The canonical
         format uses lowercase characters and leading zeros are
         not allowed.  The canonical format for the zone index is
         the numerical format as described in RFC 4007, Section
         11.2."; 

I'm not asking about it in a draft-ietf-netmod-rfc6021-bis context (not remotely worth changing from the previous RFC).

I am wondering if these additional rules for the compressed format are used outside NETMOD? If so, I wonder if it's worth describing them in a doc that might get more attention.

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-05-14 for -02)
No email
send info
I'm curious - what's a yang-identifier used for?  Wouldn't a
hint here be nice?

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2013-05-13 for -02)
No email
send info
In the shepherd writeup, the answer to Q7 is non-responsive to the question.  That said, I know that the author is well aware of BCPs 78 and 79, and this is a bis of his earlier document, so I'm not concerned about that point.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

Comment (2013-05-14 for -02)
No email
send info
The regular expression for domain names does not cover all possible domain names.   Domain names can contain any ASCII character, not just the ones that RFC1034 recommends—RFC1034 doesn't exclude those other characters, but merely recommends which ones should be used in names that will be used by certain protocols.

This is alluded to in the comments for the declaration, so I assume it's been thought about, but I'm a bit concerned that if the domain name data format is used to fetch a domain name that's been configured, for example in a DNS server, but that domain name contains characters not in the set defined in this document, an implementation might exhibit unexpected behavior; in any case, this wouldn't actually _work_.

Is there some strategy documented elsewhere for dealing with this problem?  Or is this only ever expected to be used in situations where non-conforming domain names can't occur (i.e., not for fetching configuration state from a DNS server)?

I realize that this question really pertains to 6201, so it may be difficult to answer now, but it became apparent when I reviewed the document, so I thought it worth asking even if there's nothing to be done about it at the moment.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2013-05-15 for -02)
No email
send info
                                                     Internationalized
         domain names MUST be encoded in punycode as described in RFC
         3492

You could simplify a bit if you wanted and simply say, "Internationalized domain names MUST be A-labels as per RFC 5890". Then you can skip the reference to 3492 and 5891, since 5890 makes the forward references.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

Comment (2013-05-15 for -02)
No email
send info
test

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2013-05-09 for -02)
No email
send info
I have to ask why the canonical representation doesn't end in Z (i.e., why is it different)?