Re: [Last-Call] [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-06

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Lada,

Thank you for your review!

Below are responses to your comments.

K.

> On Apr 12, 2021, at 4:19 AM, Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> The document defines two YANG modules - ietf-http-client and ietf-http-server -
> that belong to a relatively complex set of modules. The modules are well
> designed and nicely documented, both in the descriptions and document text.

 :)


> **** Comments
> 
> - Sections 2.1.3 and 3.1.3: the sentence 'The "..." module does not contain any
> protocol-accessible nodes.' is misleading in that the modules do define data
> nodes that are intended to be protocol accessible after the corresponding
> grouping is used. I know this is a part of the NETCONF/YANG lingo, but another
> formulation that clearly says what's going on might be preferable.

I fixed this when I addressed the same comment made in the “tcp-client-server” draft.



> - Sections 2.2 and 3.2: the XML snippets use document elements "http-client"
> and "http-server", but these containers are not defined in the corresponding
> modules. This is confusing, my suggestion is to rewrite the examples in the
> JSON representation where no such top-level node is necessary.

Same solution as for the “tcp-client-server” draft, which is to simply remove the first and last lines, for the non-existent “container” statement.

Update: I was going to proactively-apply the same solution to the “ssh” and “tls” drafts, but I couldn’t because the top-level element defines additional prefixes.  This is where your “JSON” idea could help, though, for some reason, having a mix of XML/JSON in the suite of drafts is off-putting to me.  We could convert all the examples to JSON, but that’s a fair amount of work too…  

How about adding an XML-comment indicating that the top-level element doesn’t really exist?


> - Placeholders BBBB, CCCC and EEEE are defined in Editorial Note but never used

Fixed.


> **** Nits
> 
> - RFC 7950 is cited repeatedly (4 times) in a general context, e.g. whenever
> YANG 1.1 is mentioned. It should suffice to use the citation at the first
> appearance.

Fixed.  Also in the “ssh” and “tls” drafts.


K.