Re: [secdir] review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04

[Daniel Harkins <[e-mail]>]

On 7/5/18 7:46 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> I think that the current wording is okay, but I'm okay with changing
> it too. How about this?
>
>
> OLD:
>     The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9) is
>     optional to support when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>     datastores:operational.  The associated capability to indicate a
>     server's support is identified with the URI:
>
> NEW:
>     The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9)
>     MAY be supported for the operational state datastore.  Support
>     for the "with-defaults" query parameter for the operational
>     state datastore is identified with the URI:
>
>
>
> OLD:
>     The "with-origin" query parameter is optional to support.  It is
>     identified with the URI:
>
> NEW:
>     The "with-origin" query parameter MAY be supported.  Support
>     for the "with-origin" query parameter is identified with the
>     URI:
>
>
>
> FWIW, elsewhere in the draft is another "optional" usage that could
> be changed:
>
>   OLD:
>     An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>     datastores:operational.  Other datastore resources are optional to
>     implement.
>
>   NEW:
>     An NMDA-compliant server MUST implement {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>     datastores:operational.  Other datastore resources MAY be
>     implemented.
>
>
>
> Comments?

   Looks fine, thanks.

   Dan.

>
> Kent  // co-author
>
>
>
> On 7/4/18 11:34 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 11:08:10AM -0700, Daniel Harkins wrote:
>>>     I'm suggesting SHOULD _or_ MAY and I thought where would be obvious.
>>> It is the places that say "optional to support" in 3.2.1. and 3.2.2 as
>>> I indicated. For example, 3.2.1 says,
>>>
>>>      The "with-defaults" query parameter ([RFC8040], Section 4.8.9 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_rfc8040-23section-2D4.8.9&d=DwIDaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=fApqY-LnEgjm4NbObNcu5L44jAZ2UYJz0CWl5q4U0YE&s=r65kakpgV3OSbY6iIzByXMmqvV-45Vo9wkXZHji8jlk&e=>) is
>>>      optional to support when interacting with {+restconf}/ds/ietf-
>>>      datastores:operational.
>>>
>>> 3.2.2 has similar text. As to why, it is for consistency and clarity in
>>> expressing what you want.
>>>
>> What is unclear about 'optional to support'? RFC 8040 uses similar
>> language and I do not recall that anyone had a problem with this so
>> far.
>     If you want to reject my comment then just reject my comment. It was made
> in the spirit of improving your draft which apparently you take issue with
> for some bizarre reason. If someone outside the RFC 8040 bubble you seem
> to be
> living in found the wording lacking in clarity then it would seem logical to
> infer that maybe others might too. Just a thought.
>
>     Dan.
>
>
>
>