Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Eric,

> The majority of examples showing <subscription-started> have been removed.
> The last place where they are discussed in -07 is the end of Section 2.   I
> still feel that describing the coverage or non-coverage of the set of
> subscription state change notifications within a stream of event provides a
> useful context.

We’re unclear why this document should need or want to repeat what is defined in another RFC.  This document regards how to send notifications, regardless where they are defined.

As you note, Section 2 currently has the following statement:

      Note that, for RFC 8639 configured subscriptions, the very first
      notification must be the "subscription-started" notification.</t>

Perhaps we should remove this sentence too, or replace “must” with “would”, so it doesn’t should normative?   Please advise.

Thanks,
Kent and Mahesh