[netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 15 May 2019 18:04 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietf.org
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46DC112047D; Wed, 15 May 2019 11:04:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications@ietf.org, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, netconf@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.96.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <155794345628.30726.16513916652364715189.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 11:04:16 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/byjazufpX9Xg51uM92-ugy7eMog>
Subject: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-20: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 18:04:16 -0000
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 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-netconf-event-notifications/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. 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"? 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. 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. 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." 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).
- [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dr… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dr… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dr… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dr… Randy Presuhn