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

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks for the review Benjamin.  Some thoughts in-line.  I will post the corresponding update soon.

> From: Benjamin Kaduk, May 15, 2019 2:04 PM
> 
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 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.

> Section 7
> 
> This "Either it will correspond to [...] Or this 'error-tag' will correspond to [...]"
> seems to preclude future extensions; do we want to add some weakening
> language like "for the mechanisms specified in this document"?

Works for me, now says...

For the mechanisms specified in this document, this "error-tag" will come from one of two places....
 
>                                                   The specific identity
>       to use depends on the RPC for which the error occurred.  Each
>       error identity will be inserted as the "error-app-tag" following
>       the form <modulename>:<identityname>.  An example of such as valid
>       encoding would be "ietf-subscribed-notifications:no-such-
>       subscription".  Viable errors for different RPCs are as follows:
> 
>             RPC                     use base identity
>             ----------------------  ----------------------------
>             establish-subscription  establish-subscription-error
>             modify-subscription     modify-subscription-error
>             delete-subscription     delete-subscription-error
>             kill-subscription       delete-subscription-error
>             resync-subscription     resync-subscription-error
> 
> This is probably just my lack of familiarity with the protocol, but the text doesn't
> do much to indicate how the "base identity" concept in the table corresponds to
> the "<modulename>:<identityname>" syntax or the specific example given.  I
> think that this just means that the <identityname> must be of the base type or
> derived from it, so maybe "derive from" or "have" instead of "use" in the table
> heading would be more clear.

Works for me.  Changed "use" to "have".
 
>       The yang-data included within "error-info" SHOULD NOT include the
>       optional leaf "error-reason", as such a leaf would be redundant
>       with information that is already placed within the
>       "error-app-tag".
> 
> I'm not sure where this "error-reason" leaf is defined -- I don't  see it in any of
> subscribed-notifications, yang-push, or RFC 6241.

Good catch.  It now reads "reason".  (We renamed to object "error-reason" to "reason" a few document iterations ago.)

> Section 8
> 
>                                                                      The
>    publisher MAY also suspend or terminate a subset of the active
>    subscriptions on that NETCONF session.
> 
> I'd suggest saying/repeating why the publisher might do this, i.e., "MAY also
> suspend or terminate [...], in order to reclaim resources and preserve normal
> operation for the other subscriptions."

Suggested text adopted.

> Appendix A.2
> 
> I'd suggest adding a note that the "id" values of 22, 23, and 39 are just examples,
> and that actual values may not be small integers (akin to my comment on the
> RESTCONF document).

Works for me.   I added the following at the top of the examples section:
"Additionally the subscription "id" values of 22, 23, and 39 used below are just examples. In production, the actual values of "id" may not be small integers."

Thanks again,
Eric