[netconf] Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-04.txt

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> * I know Kent uses this for TCP, but no need IMO to prefix groupings with "-grouping". This change would also make statements such as "udp-client-grouping" grouping" read better.

Actually, this is done for the entire suite of client-server drafts.  

Yes, it is annoying, but it also improves readability in places.  Somehow my doing so was never challenged all these years.  Making a divergent change for this one draft may not be good.


> * s/ as an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address, or a hostname/ as an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address, or a domain name

Even after looking at RFC 9499 (DNS Terminology) and various web search query results, this doesn’t seem obviously better.


> * s/The SHOULD can be ignored when/This MAY be ignored
> * s/The "remote-port" leaf/ The "remote-port": I'm picky here but "leaf" is defined per 7950 as "A data node that exists in at most one instance in the data tree", while groupings do not defined any data node.
> * s/Defines a generic grouping for UDP-based client applications/Defines a generic grouping for UDP-based clients.

For both bullet points above, I strongly suggest not changing the text that was just finalized in the Auth48 thread, which Mahesh participated in and approved.


Kent / contributor