Re: [Netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06: (with COMMENT)

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut
> this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Thanks for the well-written document!
> 
> I only had one comment, namely that Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.2 end
> with text that
> certain behavior for non-8342 datastores "SHOULD be defined by the
> specification
> for the datastore", and it wasn't entirely clear to me that the 2119
> SHOULD was
> necessary (since it would be attempting to constrain the behavior of
> future specifications,
> which is always a bit dicey since they could just update this
> specification to remove
> the constraint anyway).

I'm ok with changing this to "should".  The point that we want to make
is that future datastores need to consider if/how "with-defaults" apply
to them.


/martin