Re: [Netconf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Oct 11, 2018, at 3:11 AM, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> >> draft-ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis-06: 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-rfc7895bis/
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> COMMENT:
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> 
> >> Just a few minor comments:
> >> 
> >> Substantive Comments:
> >> 
> >> §2, 2nd bullet: "Each YANG module and submodule within the library
> >> SHOULD have a revision." Why not MUST? Does it ever make sense not
> >> to have a revision? What are the consequences?
> > 
> > In YANG, the "revision" is formally optional.  (But for IETF modules
> > we have stricter rules that require a revsision.)
> > 
> > This bullet is part of the "Objectives" list, so I think we should
> > rephrase it:
> > 
> > OLD:
> > 
> >   o  revision: Each YANG module and submodule within the library SHOULD
> >      have a revision.  This is derived from the most recent revision
> >      statement within the module or submodule.
> > 
> > NEW:
> > 
> >   o  revision: If defined in the YANG module or submodule, the
> >      revision is derived from the most recent revision statement
> >      within the module or submodule.
> 
> That works for me, thanks.
> 
> 
> > 
> >> Editorial Comments:
> >> 
> >> §1, last paragraph: Missing article before "YANG Library" in first sentence.
> > 
> > I can't find this.  Can you quote the full sentence?
> 
> "All NETCONF servers supporting YANG 1.1 [RFC7950] are required to
>    support YANG Library (see Section 5.6.4 of RFC 7950).”
> 
> Perhaps “support the YANG Library capability”?

Based on another comment, this entire paragraph has been removed from
this document.  The requirement for a NETCONF server to implement this
version of the YANG library is stated in
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf (and ditto for RESTCONF).


/martin


> > 
> >> §2, list item 1: "Efficient for a client to consume." - sentence fragment.
> > 
> > NEW:
> > 
> >  1.  The information must be efficient for a client to consume.
> > 
> >> -- List item 3: Why is "NOT" in all-caps?
> > 
> > Unclear, now fixed.
> > 
> >> -- List item 6: The first sentence, while not technically a fragment, seems to
> >> use an understood "you" as the subject. I doubt that is the intent.
> > 
> > NEW:
> > 
> >  6.  It must be possible to use the YANG library by schema mount
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
>