[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 [127.0.0.1]) 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-Level:
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 ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (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 [69.89.30.42]) (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 [10.9.0.10]) 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 ([69.89.31.113]) 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 ([100.15.106.211]: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-IP: 100.15.106.211
X-Source-L: No
X-Exim-ID: 1fkCBw-003d5w-Jw
X-Source:
X-Source-Args:
X-Source-Dir:
X-Source-Sender: pool-100-15-106-211.washdc.fios.verizon.net ([IPv6:::1]) [100.15.106.211]: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
Hello, 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 http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir 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 Summary: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: 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: <none> 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. also leaf config-filter { type boolean; description "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. Nits: - the orders of sections 3.1.1.1. and 3.1.1.2. 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....
- [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-… Lou Berger
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-n… Kent Watsen
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-n… Lou Berger
- Re: [RTG-DIR] RtgDir review: draft-ietf-netconf-n… Martin Bjorklund