Re: [netconf] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <> Tue, 09 April 2019 21:03 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31C2512045D; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.502
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.502 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-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 a_91tx3k-qe1; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:03:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5634A120456; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 14:03:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3974; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1554843807; x=1556053407; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=ESCKMOUe3OzMZkgl3K1fbJgG1WZyD/Bzn9D7MOCJlqU=; b=LNhGWyI2hZCVr9mssIazh+jDpIp+wM+nJwEWfZXxx3VH+B1YzRcMY7pY H5ichP/339Zvj4C3YUYjwxRUNQ9yI3yL99L0b/4M2+Uf6CRZAZef083uD 0yuZJuwSydfSIeC6T9COczSLKBR08jwcLiGw/gMeZEN64YMAR8ASN+LQn A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0AHAABzB61c/51dJa1lGgEBAQEBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEHAgEBAQGBUgQBAQEBCwGBZiqBazGEBJVJmEaBew4BAYRsAheFSSI1CA0?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQMBAQkBAgECbSiFSgEBAQMBIxE+BQIFCwIBCBUFAiYCAgIwFRACBAENDRK?= =?us-ascii?q?CPYI5CK47gS+KMoELJQGLRheBQD+BEYMSPodOglcDjROYEWIJApN6IpRfi1O?= =?us-ascii?q?TfQIRFYEwIQI0gVZwFYMokEtBj36BIAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,330,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="256668388"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 09 Apr 2019 21:03:26 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x39L3P1E008716 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 9 Apr 2019 21:03:26 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:03:25 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:03:25 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>
To: "Carlos Pignataro (cpignata)" <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23
Thread-Index: AQHU7CSNB07lUgUCgUG2NvnSY7Nf0aY0TpQg
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 21:03:24 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 21:03:30 -0000

Hi Carlos,

Thanks for the review.  Some thoughts in-line...

> From: Carlos Pignataro, April 5, 2019 10:58 PM
> Reviewer: Carlos Pignataro
> Review result: Has Nits
> Hi,
> I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing
> effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
> the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in
> AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> Summary: Almost Ready
> This is a comprehensive very well written document.
> >From an operational point of view, as per the ops-dir review, I have no
> concerns or comments. Might be nice to collect some of the operational points
> in an Operations Consideration section, particularly given the document
> structure of Section 5.x, "ZZZ Considerations".

In "implementation considerations" there are a couple which are really operational considerations.  For example the first and third bullets might qualify as operational.  The hard part is that the operational considerations to expose will vary by the subset of feature which are selected.  So I can imagine that much text could be written on best operational practices.  I am hoping that such documents could follow this one based on specific deployment contexts.
> I do have one important question for consideration, which is: what is *really*
> the relationship of this (+ draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications
> potentially) with RFC 5277? A Normative reference, this doc has no metadata
> regarding Updating, Obsoleting, etc. Yet lots of it is indeed a superset of it.

We went around and around in the WG on this for a bit.  The initial decision was that we were going to obsolete RFC-5277.  However the problem was that RFC-5277 Section 4 has a <notification> element defined which we are not replacing yet.  This <notification> is used in several important places.  Examples include RFC-8040 section 6.4 and RFC-7950 Section 7.16.2.

So we didn't want to recommend an obsolete without a replacement of that <notification>.  The good news is that we are working on a replacement for this notification.  See: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages     But this still has a while to go before it is ready.  As a result we are left with Section 1.4 of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications which describes the relationship with RFC-5277.

> I recommend the authors+ADs consider whether there is any more formal
> relationship with RFC 5277 that would require meta-tagging the RFC.

I think that this is fully appropriate as we finish draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages

> Thanks,
> Carlos Pignataro.