Re: [Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <> Wed, 09 January 2019 00:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20D75131222 for <>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:16:29 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MnP7BQh_CK2a for <>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:16:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53BEA13123B for <>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 16:16:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=5067; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1546992986; x=1548202586; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=im1xgmNa9w4CH8YbU6zRXfiKWjNfdP3aS2x87nCPhHE=; b=IohNv9D9HEHdWjmtj1C2W2XP8o/1od/scL7c45pT6GamYQr8F6zdftEd tBeplyRyiWiO9ssOd2uZ/xjL8HDaQXOEFImv+h50TV6n5WYh6u9K0tcKj UYhm9c6m26J3PWKLxTqgrlxIBHbcBhaC8o2I8T2QKX9m9QkpejWamLxgI c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAD0OzVc/5hdJa1kGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgVopZoECJwqMEI14l3AUgWcLAQEfhE0?= =?us-ascii?q?CghIiNAkNAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFSgEBAQMBdwIFCwIBCA4DBAEBDiEyHQgBAQQ?= =?us-ascii?q?OBQiCT0sBgXkID6s9ii0FjD8XgUA/gRGDEoMeAoEmhhsCiU8EhmKRMgkCkW4?= =?us-ascii?q?ggWOQEopxjzYCERSBJx84gVZwFRqDDYsdhT9BMYl7gR8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,455,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="223300550"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jan 2019 00:16:25 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x090GOQK002834 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 9 Jan 2019 00:16:25 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 19:16:24 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 19:16:24 -0500
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>
To: Qin Wu <>
CC: "" <>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15
Thread-Index: AdSnqv1zqRH0wmeZS2W8xJ2mden3bAAAApaQ
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 00:16:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2019 00:16:36 -0000

Hi Qin,

Thank you very much for assisting with the Shepherd role here.   Some thoughts in-line...

> From: Eric Voit, January 8, 2019 6:37 PM
> From: Netconf <> On Behalf Of Qin Wu
> Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 12:44 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15
> Hi, All:
> I am assigned as acting shepherd to assist Kent to review draft-ietf-netconf-
> netconf-event-notifications-15
> and have the following comments:
> 1. I see event record can be sent via notification for dynamic subscription based
> on section 2.6 of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-19, but I didn't see
> subscription state notifications can be sent for dynamic subscription based on
> section 2.7 of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed- notifications-19. If this is true,
> Configured subscription example should be cleaned up in the appendix.

There are several places in draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-19 where it describes that subscription state notifications may be sent for dynamic subscriptions.   However it is good to add more text on this.  As a result, I have updates a paragraph in 1.3 with more info on this to say...

"Note that there is no mixing-and-matching of dynamic and configured operations on a single subscription.  Specifically, a configured subscription cannot be modified or deleted using RPCs defined in this document.  Similarly, a dynamic subscription cannot be directly modified or deleted by configuration operations.  It is however possible to perform a configuration operation which indirectly impacts a dynamic subscription. By changing value of a pre-configured filter referenced by an existing dynamic subscription, the selected event records passed to a receiver might change."

This text is reflected in the just-uploaded version of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications.

> 2. By reading section 10, it is not clear which document should be updated to
> support notification after a successful "establish-subscription", RFC6241 itself,
> or this document?

RFC 6241 needs to be updated based on the needs of this draft.  RFC-6241 section 1.2 bullet "(2)" targets RFC-5277 (actually it identifies RFC 5717, but that was an error fixed after RFC publication).  Anyway the current phrasing in RFC-5277 says that a notification message can only be sent after a successful "create-subscription".  Therefore the reference text must be modified to also allow notification messages be sent after a successful "establish-subscription". 

As a result I have updated bullet (2) in Section 10 to say:

   (2)  The Messages layer provides a simple, transport-independent
        framing mechanism for encoding RPCs and notifications.
        Section 4 documents the RPC messages, [RFC5277] documents
        Notifications sent as a result of a <create-subscription> RPC,
        and [RFC xxxx] documents Notifications sent as a result of
        an <establish-subscription> RPC.  
  (where xxxx should be replaced with this RFC number)

> 3. Running nits tools, there are the following errors and warnings:
> "
>   Checking nits according to :
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
>      2.2 of for how to handle the case
>      when there are no actions for IANA.)

I have added the requested section stating that there are no IANA Considerations

>   Miscellaneous warnings:
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
>      match the current year

This looks to have corrected itself automatically with the new version.
>   == Line 195 has weird spacing: '...ription  estab...'
>   == Line 199 has weird spacing: '...ription    res...'
>   == Line 211 has weird spacing: '... stream   esta...'
>   == Line 214 has weird spacing: '...ription    ret...'
>   == Line 216 has weird spacing: '... stream   modi...'

These five items are on table formatting.   Things look much cleaner as currently shown in the document when the extra spaces are included.

> 4. RFC6241 needs to be updated but it is not listed on the title page header.

The update to the RFC editor for RFC6241 is noted in a separate section titled: " Notes to the RFC Editor".   Adding this information to the header seemed redundant.

> Note that I have talked with authors on most of these comments, I believe a
> new version will come soon to address these comments.
> -Qin