Re: [netconf] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22

Hi Stewart,

Thank you for your comments!  Please find replies inline, <ALEX>

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant via
Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:41 PM
To: gen-art@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push.all@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org;
netconf@ietf.org
Subject: [netconf] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Nits

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area Review
Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed by the IESG for
the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2019-04-10
IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: A well written document with just a small nuber of minor matter in
the nits section that need to be considered.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7895 (Obsoleted by RFC 8525)
============

<ALEX> We will update the reference.
</ALEX>

SB> I assume that the ADs are happy with seven front page authors.

===========
 Abstract

   Via the mechanism described in this document, subscriber applications
SB> I am not sure if  starting a sentence with "via" is good English but 
SB> I have not seen it done before.

<ALEX> we think "via" is fine; if you prefer it to say "using", please let
us know and we will change it.  
</ALEX>

===========
   Traditional approaches to providing visibility into managed entities
   from remote have been built on polling.
SB> from remote what?

<ALEX> from a remote system, a remote application, a remote location.  
I do think this is clear; if you prefer it to say "from a remote system" we
will change; please let us know if you would prefer to make that change.  
</ALEX>

===========

3.10.  On-Change Notifiable Datastore Nodes

   In some cases, a publisher supporting on-change notifications may not
   be able to push on-change updates for some object types.  Reasons for
   this might be that the value of the datastore node changes frequently
   (e.g., [RFC8343]'s in-octets counter), that small object changes are
   frequent and meaningless (e.g., a temperature gauge changing 0.1
   degrees), or that the implementation is not capable of on-change
   notification for a particular object.

SB> I could not see the parameter range specifiy what is regarded as 
SB> trivial specified in the model. It seems that it perhaps ought to be.
===================

<ALEX> This will depend heavily on the object and its intended use.
Basically we are giving only reasons why an implementation might choose to
not support on-change notifications for a particular object.  Going deeper
into reasoning behind such implementation choices, what size would be
"small" or "large", and over what time interval, etc, would IMHO go beyond
the scope of this document.  We prefer not to make a change to the document.
(Please note that there is another draft on smart filters for push updates,
which might in the future add the ability for users to e.g. configure this
and other things.)
</ALEx>

   The next figure depicts augmentations of module ietf-yang-push to the
   notifications that are specified in module ietf-subscribed-
   notifications.  The augmentations allow to include subscription
SB> s/allow to include/allow the inclusion of/
===============

<ALEX> We will make this change.
</ALEX>

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf