[netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05
Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 29 October 2019 07:10 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9FB71200CE; Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: last-call@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities.all@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.108.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <157233302184.6593.3869700028694968875@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 00:10:21 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Q_o-FO0nwREnaRh1ZYOSdtwNUN8>
Subject: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2019 07:10:22 -0000
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka Review result: Ready with Nits ***** Section 2. Introduction - Paragraph 3: the use of MAY is inappropriate: publishers indeed may have limitations, but this should follow from RFC 8641, and this document should take it as a fact. ***** Section 3. Notification Capability Model - The use of RFC 2119 terms is again questionable: I understand the ietf-notification-capabilities data as an optional aid for the implementors, but requiring that "The file SHALL be available in implementation time ..." is way too strict. ***** Section 3.2. YANG Module - This is one of the cases where it would be helpful to know which of the imported modules, such as ietf-netconf-acm, is also intended to be implemented. This may be addressed in a future YANG version (see issue #95 in yang-next), until then I would suggest to include YANG library data describing a minimum implementation. ***** Appendix A. Instance data examples - Example in Fig. 2: the <datastore> element has an incorrect XML namespace (of the ietf-datastores module). - Many enum values are invalid because they contain leading/trailing whitespace. It would be better to encode the examples in JSON.
- [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Balázs Lengyel
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Ladislav Lhotka
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Balázs Lengyel