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

[Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>]

There have been a few comments that have been made to the version of the draft that has been submitted to IESG. While we wait for other comments to be provided, and direction of when an update should be provided, who amongst the authors is updating GitHub with these changes? 

I am concerned we might lose track of the changes that need to be made.

Here are the changes that I am aware of for nmda-restconf. I can compile a similar list for nmda-netconf if needed.

Kent’s comment on nmda-restconf operations (thread <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14998.html> from today).
Dan’s comment on this thread (also from today, but is not on netconf mailing list)
Russ’s Genart review (thread <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14834.html> from June 28)
Rohit’s change-2 comments provided for nmda-netconf, that are applicable for nmda-restconf (thread <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14607.html> from June 1)

Anything else that I missing?


Mahesh Jethanandani // as document shephard

> On Jul 9, 2018, at 9:03 AM, Daniel Harkins <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.