Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with COMMENT)

[Randy Presuhn <[e-mail]>]

Hi -

On 5/16/2019 5:47 AM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
>> From: Randy Presuhn, May 15, 2019 10:10 PM
>>
>> Hi -
>>
>> On 5/15/2019 12:01 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
>> ...
>>>> From: Benjamin Kaduk, May 15, 2019 2:04 PM
>> ...
>>>> Section 6
>>>>
>>>>      Notification messages transported over the NETCONF protocol MUST be
>>>>      encoded in a <notification> message as defined within [RFC5277],
>>>>      Section 4.  And per [RFC5277]'s "eventTime" object definition, the
>>>>      "eventTime" populated with the event occurrence time.
>>>>
>>>> nit: I think the last sentence is actually a sentence fragment.
>>>
>>> This reads fine with me.  Several on-line grammar checks give it a pass, but I
>> am not sure how much I trust those tools.  So I will leave as is.
>>
>> No, it really is a fragment.  Not only does it begin with a conjunction, but it lacks
>> a verb. If it were joined to the previous sentence, one might infer a "MUST be"
>> before "populated", but as a separate sentence it no longer supports that
>> interpretation.  If "MUST be populated" isn't the intended interpretation here,
>> then it's even more important to turn that fragment into a real sentence.
> 
> Made it:  "And per [RFC5277]'s "eventTime" object definition, the "eventTime" is populated with the event occurrence time."

Better, although I see no earthly reason for beginning this
sentence with "And".

Randy