Re: [netconf] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (with COMMENT)

[Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[e-mail]>]

Hello Benoit,

The proposed text looks good to me.

Thanks for addressing my comment.

BR
Zahed
________________________________
From: Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker; The IESG
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Kent Watsen
Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (with COMMENT)

Hi,

Thanks for your review.
See inline.

On 10/6/2021 9:08 AM, Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker wrote:
> Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks for the efforts put into this specification.
>
> I have questions/comment. Section 2 says -
>
>       For the implementation-time use case: Capabilities SHOULD be provided by
>       the implementer as YANG instance data files complying to
>       [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format]. The file MUST be available
>       already at implementation time, retrievable in a way that does not depend
>       on a live network node. E.g., download from product website.
>
> How should I interpret this combination of SHOULD and MUST? Is it that if the
> implementer provides the capabilities then the file must be available at the
> implementation time? if the answer is yes, then it would be good to make it
> clear in the text.
It's not clear indeed.
What about this proposal to simply reverse the two sentences.

      For the implementation-time use case: Capabilities SHOULD be provided by
      the implementer as YANG instance data files complying to
      [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format]. In such a case, the file MUST be available
      already at implementation time, retrievable in a way that does not depend
      on a live network node. E.g., download from product website.

Regards, Benoit

>
>
>
> .