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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

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?

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.