IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04

Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz> Tue, 12 September 2017 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C463133029; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:29:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.3
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.3 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cesnet.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YfaipiHB52vH; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:29:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from office2.cesnet.cz (office2.cesnet.cz [195.113.144.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3560A133011; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 02:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:67c:1220:8b4:2:143f:863d:b8cf] (unknown [IPv6:2001:67c:1220:8b4:2:143f:863d:b8cf]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7F23400275; Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:29:14 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cesnet.cz; s=office2; t=1505208555; bh=4LQ94hJ70ialoKdy75r4EUwu1bVdUc/LfMqJGCzCmes=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=QkmMaZ17DvCdMDQE1cnPAEkD5ud33tKcgvmhpre0nacMqFcnSpOL/hhYNdVajhUZG pCnoO0guwXBOQJRHZ6BN8Xhtj54vyh8k+jLi/2VZN5TMLZdWwscJFrt0Ye43qFZPVj 9h9Atc+h+awfA6xBUa1x4SUCL+6gheMNxIVkbHzw=
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: YANG Doctors <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis.all@ietf.org, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <150514212825.9627.4482318729492694955@ietfa.amsl.com> <CABCOCHS7vRVBrytLdh0DD52Us=DcVxwOjhvuPOcQ5LBhtJ5HmA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
Organization: CESNET, z.s.p.o.
Message-ID: <e52f10dd-2be5-1697-3817-a5fb633dbded@cesnet.cz>
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 11:29:13 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHS7vRVBrytLdh0DD52Us=DcVxwOjhvuPOcQ5LBhtJ5HmA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/J-IKSzRDbCMYvLeoQ43zXJnYOSw>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 09:29:20 -0000

Dne 11.9.2017 v 23:05 Andy Bierman napsal(a):
> 
>     - /nacm/rule-list/rule/rule-type in schema: I would consider to
>     explicitely
>     state into which case the action and notification defined in data
>     subtree
>     belong to. Especially the notification placement can be confusing at
>     the first
>     sight since there is the "notification" case.
> 
> 
> not sure what text this is about.
> Do you have section, para or page/para info?
> 
> 

It's description of cases in rule-type choice (page 39 in draft). One of 
the cases is named "notification" which may be little confusing for 
notifications defined in data subtree. I propose the following change 
(or something similar) in the description of the data-node case:

... associated with the
data node controlled by this rule.

->

... associated with the
data node, action or notification (specified within a data tree)
controlled by this rule.


Radek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email