Re: [secdir] Secdir last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17

[Barry Leiba <[e-mail]>]

Thanks, Benoît!

Barry

On Mon, Oct 4, 2021 at 8:16 AM Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Hi Barry,
>
> Thanks for your insightful review.
> All remarks improve (the reading of) the specifications.
> See inline for some some specific remarks.
>
> On 10/1/2021 5:15 PM, Barry Leiba via Datatracker wrote:
> > Reviewer: Barry Leiba
> > Review result: Has Nits
> >
> > Well written and easy to read; thanks.  I only have some very minor
> editorial
> > suggestions that I ask you to consider:
> >
> > — Section 1 —
> >
> >     Many such capabilities are
> >     specific to either the complete system, individual YANG datastores
> >     [RFC8342], specific parts of the YANG schema, or even individual data
> >     nodes.
> >
> > Nit: “either” is correctly used for two items (“either A or B”).  For
> the four
> > items here, you might just eliminate the word “either”, as it’s not
> really
> > needed.
> >
> >     A NMS implementation that wants to
> >     support notifications, needs the information about a system's
> >     capability to send "on-change" notifications.
> >
> > I often find that I have to read this sort of thing (“A needs B to do
> C”) twice
> > to determine whether you mean that A requires that B do C, or that A
> needs B so
> > that A can do C — it’s ambiguous, so it requires extra analysis by the
> reader.
> > I suggest the following (which also eliminates the personification of
> NMS):
> >
> > NEW
> >     An NMS implementation that supports
> >     notifications needs the information about a system's
> >     capability so it can send "on-change" notifications.
> > END
> >
> > — Section 2 —
> >
> >     This allows a user to
> >     discover capabilities both at implementation-time and run-time.
> >
> > Nit: The “at” is factored wrong with respect to “both”. Either “both at
> > implementation time and at run time” or “at both implementation time and
> run
> > time”.  In either case, no hyphens here, as they’re not compound
> modifiers.
> >
> >        The file MUST be
> >        available already at implementation-time retrievable in a way that
> >        does not depend on a live network node.
> >
> > Nit: No hyphen (again, not a modifier), and it needs a comma after it:
> > “implementation time,”
> >
> >        For the run-time use-case
> >
> > Nit: Here, “run-time” is a modifier and needs the hyphen, but “use case”
> is a
> > noun and does not.
> >
> >        (implementing the publisher) during run-time.  Implementations
> >        that support changing these capabilities at run-time SHOULD
> >
> > Nit: No hyphens in “run time” for these two (nouns, not modifiers).
> >
> > — Section 3 —
> >
> >     A specific case is the need to specify capabilities is the YANG-Push
> >     functionality.
> >
> > I’m not sure of the right fix for this, but the two instances of “is”
> can’t
> > both be right.  Maybe the first should be “of”?
>
> A specific case is the need to specify capabilities in the YANG-Push
>     functionality.
>
> >
> >     As defined in [RFC8641] a publisher may allow
> >     subscribers to subscribe to updates from a datastore and subsequently
> >     push such update notifications to the receiver.
> >
> > It’s unclear who is pushing: it looks like it could be the subscribers.
> Maybe
> > clarify this way?:
> >
> > NEW
> >     As defined in [RFC8641] a publisher may allow
> >     subscribers to subscribe to updates from a datastore and will
> >     subsequently push such update notifications to the subscriber.
> > END
> Yes to the above.
> >
> >     unless the subscriber has some means to
> >     identify which objects "on-change" notifications are supported.
> >
> > Missing word: “are supported for.”
> >
> > — Section 4 —
> >
> >     It SHOULD be used by other modules to augment-in specific
> >     capability information.
> >
> > The term “augment-in” is not one I’m familiar with.  If it’s common in
> YANG,
> > that’s fine.  If not, maybe rephrase?
>
>     It SHOULD be used by other modules to augment in specific
>     capability information.
>
>
> >
> >     data is considered as if it was part
> >     of the running datastore.
> >
> > Ultra-nit: “as if it were part”: subjunctive mood is needed after “as
> if”.
> >
> >
> > .
> Thanks again.
>
> Regards, Benoit
>