[netconf] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-14: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-14: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-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-https-notif/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Lars' DISCUSS position.  I also support John Scudder's DISCUSS
position, and withdraw my own, which I realize now was incorrect and
"Specification Required" was a reasonable choice.  Apologies for this oversight.

Comments preserved from the previous ballot version:

The SHOULD in Section 2 has me wondering why one might choose not to do what it
says.  Or should this be a MUST?

I suspect you need normative references to RFC 7303 ("application/xml") and RFC
8259 ("application/json").

====

Additional comments from incoming ART AD, Orie Steele:

> The receiver responds with a "200 (OK)" message, having the "Content-Type"
header set to either "application/xml" or "application/json"

I assume there are no media types using the +xml or +json structured suffixes
that are relevant here.

>  refine "transport/tcp" {
>     // create the logical impossibility of enabling the
>     // "tcp" transport (i.e., "HTTP" without the 'S').
>     if-feature "not httpc:tcp-supported";
>   }

Is it typical to preserve comments like this in a published module?