Re: [netconf] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-21

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1378B120186; Tue, 21 May 2019 05:45:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=T3KvKuZA; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=SkQtTUWM
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AW-OAiaJJZPk; Tue, 21 May 2019 05:45:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E2ED12022D; Tue, 21 May 2019 05:45:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=16972; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558442735; x=1559652335; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=kmA6lPdkzOL8I2ixq8Tf7SEIeIpeyLw1/Hm3Tclk2AU=; b=T3KvKuZAIZ+WwH2+fWtAPEd84KeSKMSiysVprClEyNpMS+6RZkDxsDLJ hrrkOvdjKq7PAC7aqzyR+ClmpcbxZXidHROPSzIODSbae856/rlAymloz 7vEC5XBrovGfdnqdVy3yH6RgFwFAE/dk3iKyYC7jjcJ1p/ckdfkLlE9kq k=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A2EPX4h/WKw05+v9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+/bB7E/fs4iljPUM2b8P9Ch+fM+4HYEW0bqdfk0jgZdYBUER?= =?us-ascii?q?oMiMEYhQslVcObDkznBPXrdCc9Ws9FUQwt8g=3D=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DHAABR8uNc/4oNJK1lHgEGBwaBUgg?= =?us-ascii?q?LAYE9KScDgT4gBAsoCoQJg0cDjnSCV5cngS6BJANUCQEBAQwBAS0CAQGEQAI?= =?us-ascii?q?Xgg8jNQgOAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVKAQEBAwESEREMAQE1AgEEBwQCAQgVAQI?= =?us-ascii?q?CAgkaAwICAjAUARACBA4FCBqCNUuBawMODwECm0YCgTWIX3GBL4J5AQEFhQc?= =?us-ascii?q?Ygg8JgQwoi1EXgUA/gRFGgkw+hEYFM4JQMoImizUDgkKaLQkCgg2TG4Iehls?= =?us-ascii?q?FjS6DJYpXlCICBAIEBQIOAQEFgVABNoFXcBWDJ4IPg2+KU3KBKYtyAYEgAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,495,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="562524823"
Received: from alln-core-5.cisco.com ([173.36.13.138]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 21 May 2019 12:45:33 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (xch-rcd-013.cisco.com [173.37.102.23]) by alln-core-5.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4LCjVIG022579 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45:31 GMT
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by XCH-RCD-013.cisco.com (173.37.102.23) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:45:30 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:45:30 -0500
Received: from NAM04-BN3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-003.cisco.com (173.37.227.248) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 21 May 2019 07:45:30 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=kmA6lPdkzOL8I2ixq8Tf7SEIeIpeyLw1/Hm3Tclk2AU=; b=SkQtTUWMXlF9TLN670Whwmuurztc3vZPiEbnV7uI83BOTB/bEFOoSFJOUv/F1QoddKmNgIW+metjT0aJhvxXqfmxK3VT1hfJ6DxXmDlr1S2wProwRDhad7qKa+pRol07izQMJXNDJFS0o5WFoWzghgRyM+gRYa7ocfGas+md1W8=
Received: from DM6PR11MB4089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.176.126.30) by DM6PR11MB3370.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (20.176.122.209) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.15; Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45:28 +0000
Received: from DM6PR11MB4089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d014:d7a3:270:e5a9]) by DM6PR11MB4089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::d014:d7a3:270:e5a9%3]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.020; Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45:28 +0000
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>
CC: "draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications.all@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-21
Thread-Index: AQHVD7ogsfQqZfW6sEmyF+sbn2y9DaZ1hTEg
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45:28 +0000
Message-ID: <DM6PR11MB408999DA6CFA4068F3CFD266A1070@DM6PR11MB4089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAB75xn4HiqYqeWu2tiOsfDwU4ePc+-6ym+4EpowqZ-YMgkRRMA@mail.gmail.com> <7395d7e5db4b48e1ba582c9c48c29913@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <0100016a758d3dec-7b7a305f-30f6-4234-b66e-d48960cddef6-000000@email.amazonses.com> <1cf686e76a314553842305bc97baeb3d@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <0100016a944613e1-766a1ada-f1a1-44a3-bced-4ed28baa8797-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CAB75xn4vcHcu3pNBCntWjhw9s6RkgspsfWkQuW4AF3=P8v16cw@mail.gmail.com> <e488c7df0d8049b8aed02b3d240ebe35@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <CAB75xn4it5rABU362p6--wECsc2NVvZqu-4Np1ZhLD72DB_s3Q@mail.gmail.com> <e68ea032d2c04a6383f9291080f33256@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <23CE718903A838468A8B325B80962F9B8DA56A70@BLREML503-MBX.china.huawei.com> <5e89a05b0eb6492abee9cedfe3134031@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <058801d50a4a$4f3308e0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net> <23a9e41d7bcb41d7a6b7a9eeb50aaa18@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <057401d50fb9$855e16c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <057401d50fb9$855e16c0$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=evoit@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.77]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: e72c7c20-a569-4674-1a9d-08d6ddea344f
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM6PR11MB3370;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM6PR11MB3370:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM6PR11MB3370062C79D422C5597383F1A1070@DM6PR11MB3370.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-forefront-prvs: 0044C17179
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(376002)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(366004)(346002)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(13464003)(51914003)(14454004)(68736007)(6506007)(11346002)(33656002)(476003)(446003)(6436002)(486006)(55016002)(229853002)(9686003)(25786009)(6916009)(26005)(14444005)(186003)(478600001)(4326008)(256004)(73956011)(64756008)(66446008)(30864003)(305945005)(76116006)(66946007)(66476007)(66556008)(7736002)(53546011)(296002)(316002)(76176011)(7696005)(8936002)(8676002)(54906003)(52536014)(81166006)(81156014)(99286004)(5660300002)(66066001)(15650500001)(86362001)(2906002)(71190400001)(3846002)(53936002)(6246003)(102836004)(74316002)(6116002)(71200400001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM6PR11MB3370; H:DM6PR11MB4089.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: zT+ubGoSwcmls8wwQ4+FwLYiyEBKvg3VYZrz4378HDFsKc75n9K92zwZ/DbOK//BGHN85oyufSZmnFXTLtW/HOzPG6xxNgM+2EakyJeAjlK6TVFFsnqzZMUFC5Zt13jNTxPY1HWYrRgug5bXHxcdO/nukZ6i6weacDokx68f/d5j7K6NEZzfkfqrNeLvnePlUnYNyzIUZrWTAfnqpnC0J3ubamycDGl7J5sT+BL7/jO8Y9WR+FYqTL0VKHBRsAwBijerjDJ29A5GiYms8sJxaHa/Y/pYcMVOYjKMukvSQX8injHTL8p/Si3AvHA6yGi1PzlLz4qtTF1NFWKHlgHAe0RLCW/f0c/AbuoW+bvgblnkql5CSQ0u09Kp6wZOk9BoW+//NcRS0RRW2n+cmhL1L7vWz4/t2pyc3B7nVVYWuek=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: e72c7c20-a569-4674-1a9d-08d6ddea344f
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 May 2019 12:45:28.8159 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM6PR11MB3370
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.23, xch-rcd-013.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-5.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/fRJcwWGLyjxaXck8AU2VSkh91Ic>
Subject: Re: [netconf] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-21
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
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: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:45:47 -0000

I made it 'is'.   I posted the version as well.

Eric

> Eric
> 
> Looks good but I do agree with Benjamin about the grammar of
> 
> "And per [RFC5277]'s "eventTime" object definition, the
>    "eventTime" populated with the event occurrence time."
> 
> I cannot make that into a sentence. 'populated' seems to be a past participle
> making ' populated with the event occurrence time' into an adjectival clause and
> the whole lacking a main verb; IMHO it needs a verb before 'populated' such as
> 'is', 'will be', 'MAY be',  ' MUST be'
> etc.  I await with interest the views of the RFC Editor whose word on these
> matters I treat as gospel.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>;
> Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:59 PM
> 
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > > From: tom petch, May 14, 2019 7:48 AM
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > A quick browse tells me that in the RFC I regularly refer to,
> 'binding'
> > > is used in over 300 of them but that in all those that I looked at,
> it is always
> > > binding an element of a set to an element of the same or a different
> set, where
> > > the sets are similar in nature.  Thus ARP binds an IP address to a
> MAC address or
> > > a bidirectional MPLS LSP binds one unidirectional LSP to another and
> so one.
> > >
> > > What I do not learn here is what is being bound to what.
> > >
> > > Perhaps
> > >    This document specifies the binding of a stream of events which
> form part of a
> > > dynamic subscription to the NETCONF
> > >    protocol [RFC6241].  Dynamic subscriptions are defined in
> > >    [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].
> >
> > I am assuming that you are referring to the first sentence of the
> Intro here, as document references are not in abstracts.
> >
> > This text works for me.   Any objections anyone?
> >
> > > The crux is "binding ... to ..." which is currently lacking.
> > >
> > > More generally:-(
> > > I do find this I-D hard to understand.  I think that the key is that
> this I-D, more
> > > than any other I can think of, is so dependent on one of its
> Normative
> > > References, to whit, subscribed notifications; I think that that
> needs calling out
> > > so I would add "This memo assumes that the reader is familiar with
> the
> > > terminology and concepts defined in [subscribed-notifications]"
> >
> > As the last sentence in the Intro section, I have added:
> > "This document assumes that the reader is familiar with the
> terminology and concepts defined in
> [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications]."
> >
> > > Yes, that is what a Normative Reference means but I find this
> example so
> > > extreme that I think it needs calling out.  Each time in the past
> six months I have
> > > turned to this I-D (it is the smallest of the very large set of
> netconf I-Ds:-), I have
> > > given up, eventually working out that first I must master the 80
> pages of
> > > subscribed notifications.  This may not be so obvious to those
> involved at Last
> > > Call time.
> >
> > Understood.  And it is true that understanding
> subscribed-notifications is a prerequisite.
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > > Tom Petch
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>;
> > > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 7:39 PM
> > >
> > >
> > > > Hi Dhruv,
> > > > Hi Kent,
> > > >
> > > > > From: Dhruv Dhody, May 9, 2019 11:28 PM
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Eric Voit (evoit) [mailto:evoit@cisco.com]
> > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2019 02:18
> > > > > > Hi Dhruv,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > From: Dhruv Dhody, May 9, 2019 12:03 AM
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks for the update. I see one minor comment that is not
> > > handled.
> > > > > > > Maybe you missed it? Or you disagree, that some more text is
> > > required?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Minor Issues:
> > > > > > > > -------------
> > > > > > > > (1) Abstract & Introduction, It is not clear what does the
> > > 'binding'
> > > > > > > > mean and who are the parties to this binding? If this is
> the
> > > > > > > > document that
> > > > > > > mentions 'binding'
> > > > > > > > first, so please add some more clarifying text.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is not the first document which mentions 'binding'
> first.
> > > The
> > > > > > document which does this first is
> draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-
> > > > > > notifications.
> > > > > [[Dhruv Dhody]] draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications says
> > > this in the
> > > > > Introduction -
> > > > >
> > > > >    While the functionality defined in this document is
> transport-
> > > > >    agnostic, transports like NETCONF [RFC6241] or RESTCONF
> [RFC8040]
> > > can
> > > > >    be used to configure or dynamically signal subscriptions, and
> > > there
> > > > >    are bindings defined for subscribed event record delivery for
> > > NETCONF
> > > > >    within [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications],
> and
> > > for
> > > > >    RESTCONF within [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif].
> > > > >
> > > > > I think this is only time binding is used in this context.
> > > > > And now this I-D says -
> > > > >
> > > > >    This document provides a binding for events streamed over the
> > > NETCONF
> > > > >    protocol [RFC6241] for dynamic subscriptions as defined in
> > > > >    [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].
> > > > >
> > > > > And you don’t use this term ever again.
> > > > >
> > > > > To me this is bit circular and the term binding is used loosely.
> And
> > > thus I flagged
> > > > > it. I will let you and Kent decide the right approach.
> > > >
> > > > I really am ok with many options here:
> > > >  (a)  keep the current text.
> > > >  (b)  use previous versions of the abstract.
> > > >  (c)  replace the word binding with some other text.
> > > >
> > > > Getting the right words here nailed down hasn't been from lack of
> > > effort.  To give you an idea, below are four previous attempts at
> the abstract.
> > > >
> > > > From -v5
> > > >
> > > >    This document defines how to transport network subscriptions
> and
> > > >    event messages on top of the Network Configuration protocol
> > > >    (NETCONF).  This includes the full set of RPCs, subscription
> state
> > > >    changes, and subscribed content needing asynchronous delivery.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From -v6
> > > >
> > > >    This document provides a NETCONF binding for
> > > >    [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].  Included
> are:
> > > >
> > > >    o  Transport mappings for subscription RPCs, state change
> > > >       notifications, and notification messages
> > > >
> > > >    o  Functionality which must be supported with NETCONF
> > > >
> > > >    o  Examples in appendices
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From -v7
> > > >
> > > >    This document provides a NETCONF binding for
> > > >    [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] and
> > > >    [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push].  Included are:
> > > >
> > > >    o  transport mappings for subscription RPCs, state change
> > > >       notifications, and notification messages,
> > > >    o  functional requirements, and
> > > >    o  examples
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From -v8
> > > >
> > > >    This document provides a NETCONF binding to subscribed
> > > notifications
> > > >    and to YANG push.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Honestly I like the v5 version.   But previous reviewers have
> > > incrementally driven things to the current text.    If Kent you
> prefer
> > > something other than the current text, let me know what it is.  I am
> sure I will
> > > like it too.
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > Dhruv
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > In the abstract of this document, that draft is not explicitly
> > > listed
> > > > > > by reference (as I understood we are not supposed to use
> > > references in
> > > > > > abstracts).  But it is listed in the Introduction.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To make this clearer for you in this document, perhaps
> "transport
> > > binding"
> > > > > > instead of "binding"?   I really don't have many alternatives
> I
> > > can think
> > > > > > of which also keeps the text brief.   This particular text has
> > > been
> > > > > > frequently tweaked in the past.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > Dhruv>
> > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 9:14 PM Eric Voit (evoit)
> > > <evoit@cisco.com>; wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Update posted as -v20.   With the corresponding change to
> > > draft-ietf-
> > > > > > netconf-
> > > > > > > subscribed-notifications posted as -v25.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eric
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > From: Dhruv Dhody, May 8, 2019 2:21 AM
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi Kent, Eric,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Fine with me!
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > > > > Dhruv
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:19 AM Kent Watsen
> > > > > > > > > <kent+ietf@watsen.net>;
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <eric> Based on my reading of your process suggestions
> > > Kent, I
> > > > > > > > > > like best the
> > > > > > > > > “mention” approach which you used for RFC-8071, Section
> 1.4.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > What I think could be done to cover this is:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (A)  Remove Section 11: Notes to the RFC Editor
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (B)  Per Kent’s desire to also cover
> > > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif, place the
> > > > > > > > > following statement into
> > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications
> > > > > > > > > directly after Figure 10
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > [RFC-5277] Section 2.2.1 states that a notification
> > > message is
> > > > > > > > > > to be sent to a
> > > > > > > > > subscriber which initiated a "create-subscription".
> With
> > > this
> > > > > > specification,
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > RFC-5277 statement should be more broadly interpreted to
> > > mean
> > > > > > > > > that notification messages can also be sent to a
> subscriber
> > > > > > > > > which initiated an "establish-subscription", or a
> configured
> > > > > > > > > receiver which has been sent a “subscription-started”.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Does this work for both of you?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Works for me.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The issue isn't consistency so much as meeting
> > > expectations,
> > > > > > > > > > per `xml2rfc`, the
> > > > > > > > > document should have something like the following in the
> > > > > > > > > References section, which then auto-expands to the
> correct
> > > > > > > > > reference text, as well as defining the anchor
> > > > > > > > > "I-D.ietf-netconf-
> > > > > > subscribed-notifications":
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >         <?rfc
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > include="reference.I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications"?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <Eric> That definitely makes things easier than what I
> > > have
> > > > > > > > > > been doing.  I am
> > > > > > > > > hitting an xml2rfc error trying this right now, but I
> will
> > > get there.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, it was an eye-opener when I figured it out.   Be
> > > aware that,
> > > > > > though
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > > external sources (e.g., ITU standards) are supported,
> many
> > > are
> > > > > > > > > not, and so hand- coding the <reference> is still
> sometimes
> > > > > > required...
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Kent // shepherd
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > >
> >
> >