Re: [yang-doctors] [Netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-10

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Fri, 23 March 2018 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
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 A46BE12D86B; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:04:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RLFUYgkk0AeB; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:04:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCF9012D870; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 04:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-80-27.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [212.85.80.27]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 292D61AE0099; Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:04:28 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:04:27 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20180323.120427.640110344192892955.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: evoit@cisco.com
Cc: andy@yumaworks.com, yang-doctors@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <3447e37fe75441c59923a13ee609bdc4@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <152115125179.4495.9379808208471040239@ietfa.amsl.com> <3447e37fe75441c59923a13ee609bdc4@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/cNgkn3uIl2_3S_huX3r-VC13R64>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [Netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-10
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: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 11:04:32 -0000

Hi,

One comment below.


"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks very much for the excellent comments.   Thoughts in-line...
> 
> 
> 
> Also where changes were made, you can see them in the working copy at:
> 
> https://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc5277bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-11.txt
> 
> (there are two agreed changes from the WG session to be embedded, but
> the comments below are in there.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Andy Bierman, March 15, 2018 6:01 PM
> 
> >
> 
> > Reviewer: Andy Bierman
> 
> > Review result: Almost Ready
> 
> >
> 
> >
> 
> > 1.2 Terminology
> 
> >
> 
> >    Notification message: A set of transport encapsulated information
> 
> >    intended for a receiver indicating that one or more event(s) have
> 
> >    occurred.  A notification message may bundle multiple event records.
> 
> >    This includes the bundling of multiple, independent RFC 7950 YANG
> 
> >    notifications.
> 
> >
> 
> >   >> Cannot find any text that supports this claim; find the contrary:
> 
> >     from 2.6:
> 
> >        This notification
> 
> >        message MUST be encoded as one-way notification element
> 
> >        of [RFC5277]
> 
> 
> 
> The reason for this more inclusive term is to permit future
> notification messages which allowing bundling.  This is as per adopted
> NETCONF draft:
> 
> draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there are advantages in using the more inclusive term now,
> rather than doing a future retrofit to this draft when
> notification-messages completes.

But later in this draft you state that there will be an update to this
document when the notification messages draft is done.

> I.e., I don't see it harming
> anything in the specification with the expansive term.

I think it will be confusing to readers to see the statement that this
document support bundling, then it says that notifs MUST be encoded as
5277 notifications.

I suggest you remove:

  A notification message may bundle multiple event records.  This
  includes the bundling of multiple, independent RFC 7950 YANG
  notifications.

[...]




/martin