YANG Library
RFC 8525
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Ignas Bagdonas; former steering group member) Yes
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection
Thanks for the work everyone did on this document. ID Nits reports: ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 6536 (Obsoleted by RFC 8341) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 16: > leaf checksum { > type string; > mandatory true; > description > "A server-generated checksum of the contents of the > 'yang-library' tree. The server MUST change the value of > this leaf if the information represented by the > 'yang-library' tree, except 'yang-library/checksum', has > changed."; I suspect that changing the name of this node in the tree would be disruptive at this point in time, but this is clearly not a checksum ("There is no requirement that the same information always results in the same 'checksum' value"). I would suggest updating the description to use the term "version identifier" or something similar. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- §8.2: > [RFC8340] Bjorklund, M. and L. Berger, Ed., "YANG Tree Diagrams", > BCP 215, RFC 8340, DOI 10.17487/RFC8340, March 2018, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8340>. Since RFC 8340 is required to understand the syntax used in the tree diagrams used by draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis, RFC 8340 should be normative rather than informative.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
Just a few minor comments: Substantive Comments: §2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD have a revision." Why not MUST? Does it ever make sense not to have a revision? What are the consequences? Editorial Comments: §1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence. §2, list item 1: "Efficient for a client to consume." - sentence fragment. -- List item 3: Why is "NOT" in all-caps? -- List item 6: The first sentence, while not technically a fragment, seems to use an understood "you" as the subject. I doubt that is the intent.
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) No Objection
It's interesting that multiple entries for full-fledged module implementation are forbidden, but import-only modules can have multiple (different) entries. I'm not familiar enough with the YANG ecosystem to understand why one is more common or more reasonable to permit than the other.
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) No Objection
(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection