[Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 08 January 2019 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6E07131067 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:43:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1yiLLO5tgLYU for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1D334129A87 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:43:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 179DA2213C076B8B2F8D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:43:24 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml702-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:43:23 +0000
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:43:18 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11
Thread-Index: AdSnFQ5Z3HWr5jjfQbudBX+zb68cBQ==
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:43:18 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B1CA6D8@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B1CA6D8nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Cf5X9K6OLmb1WebU_FCNMdviBlM>
Subject: [Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 05:43:29 -0000

I am assigned as acting shepherd to assist Kent to review draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11
and have the following comments:
1.Clean up configured subscription specific notification such as subscription-modified, subscription-terminated. My impression is subscription-
modified, subscription-terminated as state change notification are only applicable to configured subscription. If the intention is to introduce
notification corresponding to establish-subscription or modify-subscription, separate notification name should be made.
2.Coexist of event stream discovery support
   by querying the "streams" container of ietf-subscribed-
   notification.yang and event stream discovery Support by querying the
   "streams" container of ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang in [RFC8040] should be discussed and
3. Additional text is required to discuss how  the server ensure only said
client accesses the resource via URL in the security consideration section.
4. Run ID nits tool and found 2 errors and 8 warnings as follows:
  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

  ** There are 10 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 37 characters in excess of 72.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  == Line 206 has weird spacing: '...ription  estab...'

  == Line 225 has weird spacing: '... stream   esta...'

  == Line 228 has weird spacing: '...ription    ret...'

  == Line 230 has weird spacing: '... stream   modi...'

  -- The document date (December 13, 2018) is 25 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5277' is defined on line 535, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7230' is defined on line 559, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)

4. There are 7 errors in YANG validation output.
5. Tree diagram output doesn't show in the section 6.

Note than I have talked with authors on most of these comments. I believe a new version will
Come soon to address these comments.