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

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Jul 04, 2018 at 12:46:10PM -0700, Daniel Harkins wrote:
> 
> 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://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8040#section-4.8.9>) 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.
>

Thanks for your comments.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>