[RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06

Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net> Mon, 30 July 2018 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <lberger@labn.net>
X-Original-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F08F130E97 for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (768-bit key) header.d=labn.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KRs7PtmsHa8Y for <rtg-dir@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com (gproxy3-pub.mail.unifiedlayer.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1705E13113E for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 10:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cmgw10.unifiedlayer.com (unknown []) by gproxy3.mail.unifiedlayer.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6C340DE0 for <rtg-dir@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:42:44 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from box313.bluehost.com ([]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id kCBwfV7hZuL2QkCBwf3aby; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:42:44 -0600
X-Authority-Reason: nr=8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=labn.net; s=default; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Cc:To:Subject:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description: Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qYn5fB2QYAKEoLJJ4HepCQM9goBb/7KFiB9qwC6JqRE=; b=R4cswxzYnGQm70ct8ieouMhlhy xTSBNaPUrtuLEFBpQ1SAdBomlq31T1Itkowj8SOx9EmhG+mowxy1gx14jELKoEpoFY8aFJCqJkozI CCJnlfZntL3WfYyd2YC9tQeAf;
Received: from pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([]:40890 helo=[IPv6:::1]) by box313.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <lberger@labn.net>) id 1fkCBw-003d5w-Jw; Mon, 30 Jul 2018 11:42:44 -0600
From: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
To: "<rtg-ads@ietf.org>" <rtg-ads@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf.all@ietf.org, rtg-dir@ietf.org, NetConf WG <netconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <7872c72c-cb9a-efcd-578b-fca5beb8ffd6@labn.net>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 13:42:43 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report
X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box313.bluehost.com
X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org
X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12]
X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - labn.net
X-BWhitelist: no
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1fkCBw-003d5w-Jw
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) []:40890
X-Source-Auth: lberger@labn.net
X-Email-Count: 8
X-Source-Cap: bGFibm1vYmk7bGFibm1vYmk7Ym94MzEzLmJsdWVob3N0LmNvbQ==
X-Org: HG=bhcustomer;ORG=bluehost;
X-Local-Domain: yes
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/Qz3U7WEiheE1L2N5ahEhwvDE3V8>
Subject: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06
X-BeenThere: rtg-dir@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Routing Area Directorate <rtg-dir.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rtg-dir/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtg-dir@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtg-dir>, <mailto:rtg-dir-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2018 17:45:24 -0000


I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. 
The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related 
drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and 
sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide 
assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing 
Directorate, please see 

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it 
would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF 
Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through 
discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf06.txt
Reviewer: Lou Berger
Review Date: July 30, 2018
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track


I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be 
resolved before publication.


The document is is generally well written and easy to read.  There are 
several places where I'm sure the authors know exactly what they intend, 
but the text could be revised to help along those less familiar with the 
work.  There is also one miss-marked RFC Update reference.

Major Issues:


Minor Issues:

- Cover/Abstract
    Updates: 7950

    The update to
    RFC 7950 requires the usage of I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis by NETCONF
    servers implementing the Network Management Datastore Architecture.

If I read this and the referenced document correctly, this is saying 
that I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis updates which version of YANG library 
is supported by implementations RFC7950 that support NMDA.  If this is 
the correct reading, this document doesn't update RFC7950, but rather 
I-D.ietf-netconf-rfc7895bis updates 7950. (this omission was noted in a 
separate message.)

- section 3.1.1.

    The "config-filter" parameter can be used to retrieve only "config
    true" or "config false" nodes.

          leaf config-filter {
            type boolean;
              "Filter for nodes with the given value for their
               'config' property.";

So this means:
     absent = provide all
     true = provide only true
     false = provide only false

Right? Either way, I think this could be clarified a bit.  At least say 
what behavior is expected when the leaf is omitted.


- the orders of sections and should be reversed to 
match the module ordering.

- Section 3.1.2:

    The "default-operation" parameter is a copy of the
    "default-operation" parameter of the <edit-config> operation.

    The "edit-content" choice mirrors the "edit-content" choice of the
    <edit-config> operation.  Note, however, that the "config" element in
    the "edit-content" choice of <edit-data> uses "anydata" (introduced
    in YANG 1.1) while the "config" element in the "edit-content" choice
    of <edit-config> used "anyxml".

It's fine to say that these nodes mirror <edit-config> nodes, but this 
document should at least summarize the function of each, e.g.,
     The "default-operation" parameter selects the default operation
     for this request. It is a copy....