Skip to main content

The YANG 1.1 Data Modeling Language
RFC 7950

Yes

(Joel Jaeggli)

No Objection

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

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

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2016-05-19 for -12)
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 steering group member) Yes

Yes (2016-05-19 for -12)
The OPS-DIR comments need to be addressed before publication.

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -12)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-18 for -12)
Dale's Gen-ART review warrants a response.

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-18 for -12)
Following the discussion from Stephen's comments.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-18 for -12)
- 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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-05-19 for -12)
Thanks authors and Benoit for the clarifications on why this does not obsolete RFC6020.

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -12)