[Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 08 January 2019 05:43 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C554B131067 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:43:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q33TgcqvLafv for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B04F129A87 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2019 21:43:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CBBFCA84726B88065F01 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:43:48 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:43:48 +0000
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0415.000; Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:43:43 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15
Thread-Index: AdSnFR0kZXTKNt3GSpKvGLn4+Ir6Fg==
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2019 05:43:42 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B1CA6E8@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B1CA6E8nkgeml513mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/mz5Unhvxz-dUG9HefhErNXUWuo4>
Subject: [Netconf] Review of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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, 08 Jan 2019 05:43:53 -0000

Hi, All:
I am assigned as acting shepherd to assist Kent to review draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-15
and have the following comments:
1. I see event record can be sent via notification for dynamic subscription based on section 2.6 of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-19, but I
didn't see subscription state notifications can be sent for dynamic subscription based on section 2.7 of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-
notifications-19. If this is true, Configured subscription example should be cleaned up in the appendix.
2. By reading section 10, it is not clear which document should be updated to
support notification after a successful "establish-subscription", RFC6241 itself, or this document?
3. Running nits tools, there are the following errors and warnings:
  Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist :

  ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section.  (See Section
     2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case
     when there are no actions for IANA.)

  Miscellaneous warnings:

  == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not
     match the current year

  == Line 195 has weird spacing: '...ription  estab...'

  == Line 199 has weird spacing: '...ription    res...'

  == Line 211 has weird spacing: '... stream   esta...'

  == Line 214 has weird spacing: '...ription    ret...'

  == Line 216 has weird spacing: '... stream   modi...'
4. RFC6241 needs to be updated but it is not listed on the title page header.

Note that I have talked with authors on most of these comments, I believe a new version will come soon to address these comments.