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

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kent,

Thanks for your review.
See inline, after some clean up.
I addressed your two remaining comments and I posted a draft version: 
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-16

>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> - is the comment "The special value '/' denotes all data nodes in the
>>>>>> datastore.b consistent with XPath 1.0 expressions.
>>>>>> BALAZS: we are consistent witjh the NACM RFC, which says:
>>>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B The special value '/' 
>>>>>> refers to all possible
>>>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B datastore contents.";
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the comment should say b Section ???, the special valueb
>>>> Done.
>>>> B B B B B B B B B leaf node-selector {
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B type nacm:node-instance-identifier;
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B description
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B B B "Selects the data nodes for which 
>>>> capabilities are
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B B B B specified. The special value '/' 
>>>> denotes all data nodes
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B B B B in the datastore, as specified in path 
>>>> YANG object in
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B B B B data definition statement [RFC8341];
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B reference
>>>> B B B B B B B B B B B B B B B "RFC 8341: Network Configuration 
>>>> Access Control Model";
>>>> B B B B B B B B B }
>>
>> Looking at the new draft, I see the added clarification (thanks), but 
>> it’s a bit difficult to read.  Would this help?
>>
>> OLD: as specified in path YANG object in data definition statement 
>> [RFC8341]
>>
>> NEW: consistent with the “path” leaf node on page 41 in [RFC8341].
Done.
Did not include the double quotes around path to avoid troubles.
>>
>>
>>>>>> - this command detected a number of issues: pyang -f yang 
>>>>>> --keep-comments --yang-line-length 69 
>>>>>> ietf-notification-capabilities\@2020-03-23.yang > tmp; diff 
>>>>>> ietf-notification-capabilities\@2020-03-23.yang tmp. (whitespace 
>>>>>> at end of lines)
>>>>>
>>>>> No response?
>>>> That was an oversight. Done for both modules
>>
>> Thanks, but be mindful that tool’s opinion is not always perfect and 
>> that discretion can override it where preferred.  The primary intent 
>> is to show that an effort was made...
>>
>> In particular, the closing “; for the "import ietf-yang-library” 
>> statement is on a line by itself.  IDK if the tool is suggesting 
>> this, but I think it better if the closing “; were brought up to the 
>> previous line.
Corrected.

Regards, Benoit