Re: [Netconf] subscribed-notifications-12

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 19 April 2018 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4956C124235 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LuE3SIIyIlQU for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:49:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8803C12D892 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 07:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2706; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1524149338; x=1525358938; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FAxrYn8QhppzSdMZ2F6sYsoGLdCfpVzG82+IFA364rQ=; b=VBeR9pmJE1z4gq8+0N4/tEfEM4pd8GSP0LvfcqCm2XyGUmjub+Ce02Vu V922vc2KWXylbbpe6T6gzoJmAz6M+lejfEu7Pd8qi7pOA3sCxQUAHjEGk OxFS61xYYKN6PLQjWLGbpiAqQVESSnRuuih9jdTeZ78gIKN5tIdjxKT4j 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BRAQDIq9ha/51dJa1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNCYXooCoNeiAKMeIF0gQ+ScxSBZAslhEQCGoInITQYAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQECbBwMhSIBAQEBAgEjEUMCBQcEAgEIFQIDAiYCAgIwFQgIAgQOBQi?= =?us-ascii?q?EfQgPpXOCHIhCgiAFgQmGfYFUP4EPgwuDEQKBJYM7glQCkGSHCQgChVeIXIx?= =?us-ascii?q?ViTSGTAIREwGBJAEcOIFScBWCfoV8ilJvjlCBGAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,469,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="101024886"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Apr 2018 14:48:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w3JEmvMk031818 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:48:57 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:48:56 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 19 Apr 2018 10:48:56 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "t.petch" <ietfc@btconnect.com>
CC: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: subscribed-notifications-12
Thread-Index: AQHT19OSvBCDfpubJUuCjcsotTnR4KQIExlQ
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:48:56 +0000
Message-ID: <7e405392a4be49abbba13bfa2fb6d38e@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <17B884BF-0BB8-4B7C-BFBB-0AAFBEA857F6@juniper.net> <aedeb7390d0b4faa9f2bf12c2fe45cd2@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <040a01d3be9f$09700490$1c500db0$@clemm.org> <2089023D-DA09-48E9-8F37-8FE459DC4F49@juniper.net> <dfc78f2b1062498388824b1f6dd97ff6@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <1EC2E732-C524-4552-A3AD-27507239F763@juniper.net> <2b788c22f7ee4af889813b805348d69a@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <067301d3d7d3$71bc1820$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <067301d3d7d3$71bc1820$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/98xEwdz66ibSK_0JQo1NzrVYnvw>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] subscribed-notifications-12
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 14:49:03 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the review.  You can see the updated draft at:
https://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc5277bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-13.txt 

Some details inline...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: t.petch, April 19, 2018 7:42 AM
> To: Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com>om>; Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>et>;
> Alexander Clemm <ludwig@clemm.org>rg>; netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: subscribed-notifications-12
> 
> Eric
> 
> I see some quirks in this I-D that I think need fixing
> 
> It lacks a note to the RFC Editor asking that XXXX be replaced with the number
> assigned to the I-D

Placed this at the front of the section leading in to the YANG model

> It lacks a note to the RFC Editor asking that the two dates in the YANG module
> be replaced with the date of publication

Placed this at the front of the section leading in to the YANG model
 
> I see no Copyright in the YANG module
> 
> The YANG module references
> 
> 6991
> 7223  (which is  superseded)
> 7951
> 7540
> none of which I see in the References of the I-D

Fixed.
 
> Good practice is to have a section just before the YANG module itself which
> lists the documents from whiuch imports are made or to which references are
> made (if you simply add RFC6991 as a Reference, you will get an unused
> Reference error).  See, for example, RFC8344

Done.  

> There are a number of Informative References which I think should be
> Normative namely
> 8040

Done.  Agree this should be Normative based on the use of yang-data.

> 5246

Done.

> 6241

Done

> 6242

Done

> 7950

I believe this one is an informative reference.  I.e., the reference in the YANG model is to an example of analogous behavior from HTTP2.  My reading of rfc7950 section 7.21.4 doesn't seem to require a reference to be normative.  If it does, I can move the information into the description. 

Thanks again,
Eric

 
> Tom Petch