[netconf] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (with COMMENT)

[Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The SHOULDs in Sections 2 and 4 seem bare to me.  Why might an implementer opt
not to follow them?  SHOULD does allow a choice, after all.  Some guidance here
might be helpful.

The <CODE ENDS> tag at the bottom of Section 4 appears twice.

The "Note" at the top of the example in Appendix B should probably refer to RFC
8792, as Appendix A does.