Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-17

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

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.   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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >