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

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

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)" <[e-mail]>
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)" <[e-mail]>
> > 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:[e-mail]]
> > > > > 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)
> > <[e-mail]> 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
> > > > > > > > <[e-mail]>
> > > > > > 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
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > >
>
>