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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <> Wed, 15 May 2019 19:02 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CA01207E0; Wed, 15 May 2019 12:02:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 2DZm7cXs_j4H; Wed, 15 May 2019 12:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F5531207B0; Wed, 15 May 2019 12:02:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=6388; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1557946922; x=1559156522; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=lAK7PicURoknmG600LZxmUoYmkA1oimezwAjvKmelZg=; b=QVc4nzF179Iaw2DFuWf79s4ircxTxPjZmYRKdslPq1WwwLIlP6GOOTPl hPC64q9ZU2vbzcOnpxMjFPy8SZwBD8rWPSVnz9wzQYvMYlC9iF9guJGFG DfBuoheEOIHPXMWsOFAA3N79sObFvvz51thS1tZimj6r0CIXgLdgBzeG1 s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,473,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="563193909"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 15 May 2019 19:01:59 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4FJ1xas028472 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 15 May 2019 19:01:59 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 15 May 2019 15:01:59 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Wed, 15 May 2019 15:01:58 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>, The IESG <>
CC: "" <>, Kent Watsen <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVC0issmRKZA7PmESHWaRaGNgVg6ZsgKHQ
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 19:01:58 +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="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 19:02:11 -0000

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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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,