[netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 07 October 2021 06:12 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 9671C3A0BEC; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 23:12:45 -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-notification-capabilities@ietf.org, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, kent+ietf@watsen.net
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.38.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Message-ID: <163358716560.8876.10980384443834818241@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 23:12:45 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/iPRQCdnKQzYjMiqMojCtO8x0u48>
Subject: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (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: Thu, 07 Oct 2021 06:12:46 -0000
Benjamin Kaduk 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: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to Barry Leiba for the secdir review. Section 1 Implementation-time information is needed by Network Management [...] new network node type can be introduced into the network. Implementation-time information is needed by system integrators. [...] node type sometimes depends on these management possibilities. Commenting here since I read this draft after draft-ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format, but there seems to be pretty strong overlap between the discussion of how it's expensive to require NMS implementors to have correclty configured nodes available, the need for operators to have information about device capabilities for purchasing decisions, etc. It would be good to check that the specific language used to describe these scenarios is in agreement across documents, to the extent possible. (The phrasing in this document is probably a better starting point for the convergence, in my opinion.) Section 4.2 1) search for a datastore-capabilities list entry for the specific datastore. When stating a specific capability, the relative path for any specific capability must be the same under the system-capabilities container and under the per-node-capabilities list: the same grouping for defining the capabilities MUST be used. It's a little surprising to find the "MUST use same grouping" requirement buried in the procedure for finding a capability value for a specific data node in a specific datastore. Section 5.2 leaf minimum-update-period { [...] description "Indicates the minimal update period that is supported for a 'periodic' subscription. A subscription request to the selected data nodes with a smaller period than what this leaf specifies is likely to result in a 'period-unsupported' error."; [...] } leaf-list supported-update-period { [...] description "Supported update period values for a 'periodic' subscription. A subscription request to the selected data nodes with a period not included in the leaf-list will result in a 'period-unsupported' error."; Is it intended that these disagree on whether it is "likely to result" or "will result" in a period-unsupported error? leaf-list supported-excluded-change-type { if-feature "yp:on-change"; type union { type enumeration { enum none { value -2; description "None of the change types can be excluded."; } enum all { value -1; description "Any combination of change types can be excluded."; } } type yp:change-type; It seems like this allows for some nonsensical edge cases, like a list that includes both "none" and "any", or all the actual values from RFC 8641 as well as "none", etc. Do we need to say anything about how to handle such invalid scenarios? Section 6 I agree with Roman that it would be nice to be able to say something about the potential scope of security considerations for future augmentations, if nothing else to aid authors of such future augmentations in documenting their own security considerations. NITS Section 4.2, 5.2 I think only one "<CODE ENDS>" tag is needed.
- [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dr… Benoit Claise
- Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dr… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on dr… Benoit Claise