Re: [netconf] mbj review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-01

> >     o  General
> >
> >   In YP, support for on-change is optional.   There is a feature
> >   called "on-change".  I think this document should state explicitly
> >   that this module is intended for servers that implement that
> >   feature.
> >
> > BALAZS: OK, but some other capacity related proerties are still valid.
> 
> What other capacity related properties do you mean?

The latest draft allows minimum periodic reporting intervals to be set.

...
> >     o  Section 3.2
> >
> >   minimum-dampening-period is optional.  It should be stated what it
> >   means if this leaf is not present.   (or should the default be 0?)
> >
> > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > it is. No special meaning. I do not see a reasonable minimum value
> > (eventhough 0 would look strange). IMHO it is the responsibility of
> > the server to provide a meaningful value. If it says zero, that's
> > obviously crazy, just ignore it. I don't thing we need to have rules,
> > like: do not provide stupid state data.
> 
> Note that 0 is the default in YP, so I don't know why you think it is crazy.
> 
> I suggest you add default "0" to this.

I agree.

> >     o  Section 3.2
> >
> >   The choice update-period is not mandatory, and doesn't have a
> >   default.  What does it mean if this is not reported?
> >
> > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > it is. No special meaning.
> 
> I think this should be clarified in the description.
> 
> >     o  Section 3.2
> >
> >   The leaf max-objects-per-update is not mandatory.  What does it mean
> >   if this is not reported?  It can have the value 0.  What does that
> >   mean?
> >
> > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > it is. No special meaning.
> >
> > I do not see a reasonable minimum value (eventhough 0 would look
> > strange). IMHO it is the responsibility of the server to provide a
> > meaningful value. If it says zero, that's obviously crazy, just ignore
> > it.
> 
> I suggest you add a range "1..max" to the type.

Is max necessary?   I would assume that when this is not populated, it is  by default max (per below).

Eric

> >       Perhaps make a union of uint32 0..max and the enum "infinite" and
> >   make that the default?  (of course "infinite" is not really
> >   correct...)
> >
> > BALAZS: IMHO infinite is unreasonable. If the server doesn't know the
> > real limit, it should just not provide a value.
> 
> Ok, makes sense.  I think this should be clarified in the description.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf