Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11

[Balázs Lengyel <[e-mail]>]

 

 

From: netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani
Sent: 2020. március 10., kedd 4:47
To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11

 

I support the publication of this draft, but would like some of the issues
addressed in the document. They are mostly nits that I am hoping can be
addressed before sending it to IESG. I reviewed the -12 version of the
document.

 

s 2 Introduction

 

s/as it part of/as it is part of/

s/Examples include:/Examples include/

s/even to individual/even individual/

s/both in implementation-time/both at implementation-time/

BALAZS: OK, updated in -13

 

s 2.1 YANG-push Notification Capabilities

 

OLD:

      to check that capability information provided early, already in
      implementation-time is indeed what the publisher implements (is
      the supplied documentation correct?)
 
NEW:
      to check that capability information provided earlier, at
      implementation-time is what the publisher has implemented

BALAZS: OK, updated in -13

 

s 3 Providing System Capability Information

 

s/already in implementation-time/already at implementation-time/

BALAZS: OK, updated in -13

 

s 4.2 YANG Module & s 5.2 YANG Module

 

This section needs to list every draft/RFC referenced in the YANG model.

BALAZS: Which model is missing from 4.2 or 5.2 ? I assume we don’t have to
reference our won RFC.

 

All imports should carry a reference statement to the draft/RFC they are
importing from, e.g. ietf-netconf-acm.

BALAZS: OK, updated in -13. 

 

s 7.2 The YANG Module Names Registry

 

The indentation of the second registry is off.

BALAZS: OK, updated in -13

 

Finally, have all the examples in the appendix been validated?

BALAZS: Yes, they have been loaded into a live Confd server.

 

Thanks.

 





On Mar 4, 2020, at 1:54 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

 

Dear All,

This WGLC has received zero responses, which is insufficient to progress the
document at this time.  The chairs have therefore decided to extend the WGLC
for another two weeks, now ending March 18th.  

Again, positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it
is ready for publication", are welcomed.  This is useful and important, even
from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at
this time.

The NETCONF Chairs







On Feb 17, 2020, at 8:27 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

FWIW, this is WGLC #2, after the major updates resulting from WGLC #1 (in
October).

K.





On Feb 17, 2020, at 7:47 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]
<mailto:[e-mail]> > wrote:

This message begins a two-week WGLC for
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11 ending on March 2nd (a week
before the IETF 107 submission cutoff deadline).  Here is a direct link to
the HTML version of the draft:

 
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-11

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is
ready for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even
from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at
this time.

Thank you,
NETCONF Chairs
_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf


_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf


_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf