Re: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10 review

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi Balazs,
> 
> All changes listed below should be addressed.  The results can also be
> seen in...
> https://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc5277bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-11.txt
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
> > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 7:01 PM
> > To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > Subject: Re: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10 review
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > My last call review. Sorry if some of the comments are already
> > mentioned.
> > I  think the document is in a good shape, ready to progress onwards
> > (if my
> > MAJOR comments are clarified.).
> > 
> > Abstract:  "Also defined are delivery mechanisms for instances of the
> > resulting notification messages."
> > Aren't these in other drafts?
> 
> Notification message definition mechanisms are defined in this
> document.  But a complete solution requires a transport draft as well.

I agree with Balazs.  Shouldn't this sentence be removed?  If not,
where in this document are these delivery mechanmisms defined?

[...]

> > P34) There really should be a filter example to show how it is applied
> > against the notification.
> 
> We took the same path as other YANG documents expressing XPATH or
> subtree filters.
>
> In any case, filters documented for those examples
> should work here without change.

Can you point to one such example?


/martin