Re: [Netconf] Last Call on yang-push-17

Hi,

I believe yang-push-17 is in very good shape and is ready to progress to the next step. Here are my nits/comments/questions, nothing major:

- Both "rpc" and 'RPC" are used, should be "RPC" everywhere?
- Abstract mentions "remote mirroring", should we really assume that these new capabilities all depend on "remote mirroring" of state?
- In Section 2 "Definitions and acronyms", there's mention that the terminology defined in RFCs  7950, 8341 and 8342 is used. We should also mention the subscribed-notifications draft since terminology such as subscribers, receivers etc is defined in that draft.
- Section 2 last bullet should be "The subscription and push mechanisms for datastore updates that are specified..."
- Section 3 should be "a solution that provides a subscription service"
- Section 3.1 "additional parameters such as" implies there are more parameters. I believe there aren't more parameters? If there, add a a reference to the proper section(s)?
- Section 3.1 "... to exhaust of resources" should be "to exhaust resources"
- Section 3.1 "specify the interval which must pass before successive", change "must" to "MUST"?
- Section 3.1 (Page6), change "you might only send when an object is created or deleted" to "the publisher might only send notifications when an object is created or deleted"?
- Section 3.3 first sentence "allow subscribers to receive updates" should be "allow receivers to receive updates"?
- Section 3.3. bullet 3 for YANG patch record, add reference ro RFC8072?
- Section 3.4 2nd paragraph "publisher notifies receivers immediately and reliably whenever...", is it the receivers which are notified in such a situation or is it the subscriber?
- Section 3.5.2 s/datstore/datastore/
- Section 3.5.2 2nd paragraph, text uses past tense "was created", "was deleted", should the present be used instead?
- Section 3.5.2 3rd paragraph, "However a patch must be able...", should that say "patch record"?
- Section 3.5.2 bottom of Page 9, "YANG push" should be changed to "YANG-Push".
- Section 3.6 last sentence mentions "push-update" and "push-change-update", add reference to section 3.7?
- Section 3.7 4th paragraph, sentence "These new "push-update" and "push-change-update" are encoded..." doesn't read well. But I'm not sure how to make it better, maybe add "events" before "are encoded"?
- Section 3.8 3rd paragraph when "establish-subscription-stream-error-info" is mentioned, add a reference?
- Section 3.9 first sentence should finish with "it has proper authorization" (receiver is singular).
- Section 3.9 3rd paragraph first sentence should be "A publisher MAY choose to reject...."
- Section 3.10, first sentence change the last part to "to push on-change updates for some object types"? 
- Section 4.4.1 Figure 10. There seems to be a mistake in the XML example for the error response, we have </error-message> instead of </error-app-tag>
- YANG model P37 presence "indicates an periodic subscription", s/an/a/
- YANG model P38, fix indentation on 2nd line of description
- YANG model P39, leaf nodes kilobytes-limit and kilobytes-estimate, why not use units "kilobyte" and rename these 2 leaf nodes to limit and estimate? 

Regards,
Reshad.

On 2018-08-14, 1:28 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Kent Watsen" <netconf-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:

    This message starts a Last Call on draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-17:

      https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-17

    This marks the beginning of the last calls on the yang push suite of drafts.
    Given the size and number of documents, the chairs decided to break the 
    reviews up into pieces so as to get focus on each in turn.  We are choosing
    to go top-down, starting with yang-push and ending with the "notif" drafts.
    We plan to submit the drafts for publication when they are ready as a 
    collective.  The goal is to do all this prior to IETF 103.

    We understand that, in reviewing yang-push, there is a need to consider the
    subscribed-notifications draft.  We will not be surprised if, in the course
    of things, both drafts are updated, even though the review is primarily on
    the yang-push draft.

    While it's always nice to receive messages of support, at this time, the
    question isn't so much if the working group supports the work, than if
    the document is ready to progress.  The chairs need to see reviews that
    indicate thorough end-to-end reading of the text.  Of course, if there
    are any objections, these should be brought forward now as well.

    The current version (-17) of this draft was published on July 1st, just
    before the IETF 102 meeting.  The datatracker page for the draft is here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push.

    Thanks,
    Kent (and Mahesh)

    _______________________________________________
    Netconf mailing list
    Netconf@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf