Re: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-11.txt

[Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>]

Dear authors,

Even if I saw "all these issues addressed in github version" (at 
https://github.com/netconf-wg/yang-patch/issues/10), I've been checking 
whether all my "AD review: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-10" feedback 
has been taken into account.

- I see the new definition:

YANG Patch template: this is similar to a YANG data template,
       except it has a representation with the media type "application/
       yang-patch-xml" or "application/yang-patch+json".

YANG data template is defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf 
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-11#ref-I-D.ietf-netconf-restconf>] 
according to section 1.1.4
However, I don't find this term in the RESTCONF draft.

- I'm not sure how these two pieces of feedback have been resolved:

    Btw, I guess that nothing prevents a RESTCONF server to support
    simultaneously the plain PATCH (
    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-14#section-4.6)
    and the PATCH in this document? However, doing so, would provide a
    useless audit log, since the plain PATCH doesn't have a patch-id

           leaf patch-id {
                type string;
                description
                  "An arbitrary string provided by the client to identify
                   the entire patch.  This value SHOULD be present in any
                   audit logging records generated by the server for the
                   patch. Error messages returned by the server pertaining
                   to this patch will be identified by this patch-id value.";
              }

    Worth writing some text about it?

    leaf comment {
                type string;
                description
                  "An arbitrary string provided by the client to describe
                   the entire patch.  This value SHOULD be present in any
                   audit logging records generated by the server for the
                   patch.";


    I don't understand why it's not a MUST. Is this because this field
    is optional?
    So if it's not in the audit logging, we don't know if it's because
    the field is empty, or because someone decided not to include it.
    Do you want to say: If populated, this value MUST be present in any
    audit logging records generated by the server for the patch.


- And I see this diff between version 8 and 9.
       


Surprised that, if there is any error, it's not a MUST to return the "yang-patch-status" message?
Maybe I missed the discussion on the mailing list. Feel free to let me know.

Regards, Benoit
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Network Configuration of the IETF.
>
>          Title           : YANG Patch Media Type
>          Authors         : Andy Bierman
>                            Martin Bjorklund
>                            Kent Watsen
> 	Filename        : draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-11.txt
> 	Pages           : 41
> 	Date            : 2016-08-15
>
> Abstract:
>     This document describes a method for applying patches to
>     configuration datastores using data defined with the YANG data
>     modeling language.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-11
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-11
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> .
>