Re: [netconf] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server-26

[tom petch <[e-mail]>]

Picking a useful looking set of addressees to use but nothing to do with the actual shepherd comments on the I-D

I am looking at the I-Ds and have started with restconf; the comments may or may not apply to other I-D, time will tell

Some are errors, others are matters of opinion which you may not wish to consider at this stage.

YANG string unqualified is used as a key for the servers.  I think that this needs some discussion in the I-D pointing out how big a string can be and all the potential characters therein (emoji?),  I see this as a security issue YMMV.

You have flip-flopped between increases and decreases as the consequence of a periodic connection as opposed to a permanent and both are right and both are wrong until you qualify what resource you have in mind; I think that this needs expanding  in this and other I-D.  Currently it is written as an absolute which is right and wrong.

YANG doctors often point out the redundant elements in identifiers.  Thus a grouping is clearly a grouping where it is defined and where it is used and so ',,,-grouping' is redundant.  I would say the same about connection as in 

connection-type/connection-type/persistent-connection/persistent
might be
connection/type/persistent 

Arguable '-stack' as well

The examples use IANA allocated IP addresses - should be ones reserved 
for documentation 

/TPC/TCP/

IP addresses use the zone format

'handled internally'
internal to what? box, site nework stack,  ... needs a qualification IMHO

well known port 443 could do with a reference in the YANG, RFC or IANA website

Tom Petch

 

________________________________________
From: netconf <[e-mail]> on behalf of Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>
Sent: 20 October 2022 01:00
To: maqiufang (A)
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] Shepherd review on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server-26