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

Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz> Mon, 11 September 2017 15:02 UTC

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Radek Krejčí <rkrejci@cesnet.cz>
To: yang-doctors@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis.all@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <150514212825.9627.4482318729492694955@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 08:02:08 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/yxVcJgtSHxCsTHSqVUI6kauXQSg>
Subject: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04

Reviewer: Radek Krejčí
Review result: Ready with Nits

Hi,
I have been assigned to review draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis as YANG Doctor.
The document is almost ready to publish, I have just the following few comments:

- section 1.1 Terminology - access control rule: s/protocol operation/access
operation/

- "NETCONF transport" is mentioned at several places within the draft and model
in connection with information about the user. What about the RESTCONF
transport, shouldn't it be also mentioned or (better) shouldn't it be changed
to a general transport of the protocols accessing the datastore?

- /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.

[yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of dr… Radek Krejčí
Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Andy Bierman
Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review o… Radek Krejčí