[Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

I checked draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12 (and to some
extent draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-13 in github) wrt
my previous LC comments and new text.  Here are my additional
comments:



o  Section 1.4

  This is a left-over from my previous review; you accepted the
  proposed change, but it seems you forgot to change the text.

  OLD:

     o  the one way operation of [RFC5277], Section 4 is used.

  NEW:

     o  the <notification> message defined in [RFC5277] is still used.


o  Section 1.4

  Also a left-over.

  OLD:

   o  a publisher MAY implement both the Notification Management Schema
      and RPCs defined in [RFC5277] and this new document concurrently,
      in order to support old clients.  However the use of both
      alternatives on a single transport session is prohibited.

  NEW:

   o  a publisher MAY implement both the Notification Management Schema
      and RPCs defined in [RFC5277] and this new document concurrently,
      in order to support old clients.


o  Section 2.3

  s/"QoS" feature/"qos" feature/  (twice)


o  Section 2.4.5

  OLD:

   "subscriptions/subscription/receivers/receiver/address".

  NEW:

   "/subscriptions/subscription/receivers/receiver/address".


o  Section 2.7.6

  OLD:

   This notification indicates that a configured subscription, which
   includes a "stop-time", has successfully finished passing event
   records upon the reaching of that time.

  NEW:

   This notification indicates that a subscription that includes a
   "stop-time" has successfully finished passing event records upon
   the reaching of that time.


o  Section 4

  It seems you changed the state names from "active" to "ACTIVE",
  etc, i.e., all caps.  The 6087bis guidelines say that lower case
  should be used.

  My suggestion is to change to lower case in the model (which was in
  -10 that was in LC), and change ACTIVE to "active" in the text
  body.  (which I proposed in my LC review as well)


o  Section 4

  You have:

          leaf pushed-notifications {
            type yang:counter64;
            config false;
            description
              "Operational data which provides the number of update
               notification messages pushed to a receiver.";
          }

  Is this a left-over from previous versions?  This document doesn't
  define YANG push, and it doesn't define the term "update
  notification message".

  Should it simply be notifications-sent, with description "A count of
  the number of notifications sent to the receiver."?


o  Section 4

    leaf encoding  should have "if-feature configured;"

    (it is dependent on ../transport, which has the if-feature)


    Also, the description for this leaf is in -12:

        "The type of encoding for the subscribed data. If not
        included as part of the RPC, the encoding MUST be set by the
        publisher to be the encoding used by this RPC.";

   and in the not-yet-published -13 (from github):

        "The type of encoding for the subscribed data.   If not
        included, the encoding used will be the default for one
        encoding expected with a transport.";

   I can't parse from "the encoding used ...".



/martin