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

[Qin Wu <[e-mail]>]

A few comments on yang-push-17:
I have difficult to understand section 3.2 of yang-push-17:
Section 3.2 of yang-push-17 said:
"
To accomplish this, implementations
   SHOULD support the conceptual authorization model of [RFC8342],
   specifically section 3.2.4.

                         +-----------------+      +--------------------+
     push-update or -->  | datastore node  |  yes | add datastore node |
    push-change-update   | access allowed? | ---> | to update message  |
                         +-----------------+      +--------------------+

      Figure 5: Updated [rfc6536bis] access control for push updates

"
Do we have authorization model in NMDA specification [RFC8342], should we reference to RFC8341?
Section 3.2.4 of RFC8341 is about get and get-config operation which seems not relevant to this section.
Push-update or push-change-update are notification, so we should reference notification access control?
What is the update to RFC6536bis or RFC8341?
If there is update to RFC8341, I think it should be reflected in the front page, right?

Also I think remote mirroring appears only once in the abstract, it will be great to add definition of remote mirroring, it is hard to understand at the first place.

Section 3.11.1 said:
"
Or in case the loss of an update is
   unavoidable, it is critical that the receiver is notified
   accordingly.
"
I am wondering how does the publisher knows the loss of an update?
Do we have mechanism specified for this?

-Qin
On 2018-08-14, 1:28 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Kent Watsen" <[e-mail] on behalf of [e-mail]> 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
    [e-mail]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
    

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf