Re: [Netconf] subscribed-notifications-12

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

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) <[e-mail]>; Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>;
> Alexander Clemm <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> 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 7223  (which is  superseded)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