Re: [Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <> Tue, 08 January 2019 21:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD80E13117D for <>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:30:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 m1zE_9LDDkuK for <>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:30:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 211DE130F96 for <>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:30:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=23504; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1546983022; x=1548192622; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ap9l9qgzVeSamfGpWdBgnP9aPjoomkd/sIR+mwMIa8E=; b=iuRUOpYLoL43HNmsXop08XCDGYqKOJ0cer3TkhXSbb6VZRgAsRvY9ESK NP9bwjnZIqWwMq6SIh7goqVdqcZzI5Aq2RJIUgtaCdZR1diI5963zKFA/ 7DSqXk5smY8JBWJKBuuBrjOpjOxN8RktvidKTO+V0O1brVXfGHwgcYhLt M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAAAOFjVc/5ldJa1jGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ1NKWaBAicKg3aIGo1UJZdwFIFnCwE?= =?us-ascii?q?BIwmEQAIXgXsiNAkNAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFSgEBAQQjVhACAQgOAwMBAg4dAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?CMB0IAQEEAQ0FgldLAYEdZA+pWYEvhC0BgROEaAWMIh0XgUA/gREnDBOCTIM?= =?us-ascii?q?eAoEmJQYwGIJRMYImAolThgEZhkuLLwkChxaKYBiBY4Ukim6JaoQTdYs1AhE?= =?us-ascii?q?UgScfOIFWcBVlAYJBgicXiF+FP3IBgSeHJyuBAQGBHgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,455,1539648000"; d="scan'208,217";a="222680321"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Jan 2019 21:30:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x08LUEjg004793 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 8 Jan 2019 21:30:15 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:30:14 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 15:30:14 -0600
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>
To: Qin Wu <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11
Thread-Index: AdSnFQ5Z3HWr5jjfQbudBX+zb68cBQAjKpOA
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 21:30:13 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_250CDB6D657A4604B663B17EFB515B80ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2019 21:30:25 -0000

Hi Qin,

Thanks for doing the review.

Please see inline <RR>.

From: Qin Wu <>
Date: Tuesday, January 8, 2019 at 12:43 AM
To: "" <>
Cc: Kent Watsen <>et>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <>
Subject: Review of draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11

I am assigned as acting shepherd to assist Kent to review draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-11
and have the following comments:
1.Clean up configured subscription specific notification such as subscription-modified, subscription-terminated. My impression is subscription-
modified, subscription-terminated as state change notification are only applicable to configured subscription. If the intention is to introduce
notification corresponding to establish-subscription or modify-subscription, separate notification name should be made.
<RR> Based on the discussions between yourself and Eric on netconf-notif (changes being made in 1.3 of SN), is this now closed?

2.Coexist of event stream discovery support
   by querying the "streams" container of ietf-subscribed-
   notification.yang and event stream discovery Support by querying the
   "streams" container of ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang in [RFC8040] should be discussed and
<RR> I’ll add some text which says something along the lines of “If module ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang is also supported, the streams which are in ietf-subscribed-notifications.yang SHOULD also be in ietf-restconf-monitoring.yang.”

3. Additional text is required to discuss how  the server ensure only said
client accesses the resource via URL in the security consideration section.
<RR> I will add some text which explains that the URL is encrypted, and also that user credentials can be used (similar to what is mentioned in section 3.4 wrt credentials required for RPCs modify-subscription etc). This is inline with discussions which occurred during WGLC.

4. Run ID nits tool and found 2 errors and 8 warnings as follows:
  Checking nits according to :

  ** There are 10 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest
     one being 37 characters in excess of 72.

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  == Line 206 has weird spacing: '...ription  estab...'

  == Line 225 has weird spacing: '... stream   esta...'

  == Line 228 has weird spacing: '...ription    ret...'

  == Line 230 has weird spacing: '... stream   modi...'

  -- The document date (December 13, 2018) is 25 days in the past.  Is this

  Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard

     (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references
     to lower-maturity documents in RFCs)

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC5277' is defined on line 535, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Unused Reference: 'RFC7230' is defined on line 559, but no explicit
     reference was found in the text

  == Outdated reference: A later version (-20) exists of

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446)

 <RR> Will run ID nits and fix.

4. There are 7 errors in YANG validation output.
<RR> The errors are due to an issue in yanglint which has been fixed in 0.16.69 but datatracker is using 0.14.80. See

5. Tree diagram output doesn’t show in the section 6.
<RR> Ack.


Note than I have talked with authors on most of these comments. I believe a new version will
Come soon to address these comments.