Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over NETCONF
draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-22

[Ballot comment]
Thanks for the work everyone has put into this document. I have only a small number of comments and some nits.


== COMMENTS ==
- section 4, "MUST be supported" but by which party ?
- section 7, MUST all components (except 'error-severity') be part of the rpc-error ? If so, then make it clear
- section 8, see the subscriber as the ennemy, but, can also the exporter be a threat?


== NITS ==
- it would be clearer to group all authors by affiliation
- abstract providing references to subscribed notifications and YANG-push documents would be a plus
- section 3, expand RPC
- section 3, probably because I am not a native English speaker, but I cannot really parse "A solution MUST reply" esp the word "solution"

[Ballot discuss]
An easy to fix issue.

Section 8.  I agree with the brevity of this section as the more detailed considerations can be found in [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].
[draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] has a similar statement about buggy subscribers, but also makes a SHOULD statement about operators monitoring for odd behavior.  This text doesn’t include this monitoring recommendation but does explicitly discuss terminating sessions.  Could the text in these two sections please be reconciled. Perhaps with a reference such as:

“This document does not introduce additional Security Considerations for dynamic subscriptions beyond those discussed in [draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].  In particular for NETCONF subscribers … ”

[Ballot comment]
Section 6

  Notification messages transported over the NETCONF protocol MUST be
  encoded in a  message as defined within [RFC5277],
  Section 4.  And per [RFC5277]'s "eventTime" object definition, the
  "eventTime" populated with the event occurrence time.

nit: I think the last sentence is actually a sentence fragment.

Section 7

This "Either it will correspond to [...] Or this 'error-tag' will
correspond to [...]" seems to preclude future extensions; do we want to
add some weakening language like "for the mechanisms specified in this
document"?

                                                  The specific identity
      to use depends on the RPC for which the error occurred.  Each
      error identity will be inserted as the "error-app-tag" following
      the form :.  An example of such as valid
      encoding would be "ietf-subscribed-notifications:no-such-
      subscription".  Viable errors for different RPCs are as follows:

            RPC                    use base identity
            ----------------------  ----------------------------
            establish-subscription  establish-subscription-error
            modify-subscription    modify-subscription-error
            delete-subscription    delete-subscription-error
            kill-subscription      delete-subscription-error
            resync-subscription    resync-subscription-error

This is probably just my lack of familiarity with the protocol, but the
text doesn't do much to indicate how the "base identity" concept in the
table corresponds to the ":" syntax or the
specific example given.  I think that this just means that the
must be of the base type or derived from it, so maybe
"derive from" or "have" instead of "use" in the table heading would be
more clear.

      The yang-data included within "error-info" SHOULD NOT include the
      optional leaf "error-reason", as such a leaf would be redundant
      with information that is already placed within the
      "error-app-tag".

I'm not sure where this "error-reason" leaf is defined -- I don't  see
it in any of subscribed-notifications, yang-push, or RFC 6241.

Section 8

                                                                    The
  publisher MAY also suspend or terminate a subset of the active
  subscriptions on that NETCONF session.

I'd suggest saying/repeating why the publisher might do this, i.e., "MAY
also suspend or terminate [...], in order to reclaim resources and
preserve normal operation for the other subscriptions."

Appendix A.2

I'd suggest adding a note that the "id" values of 22, 23, and 39 are
just examples, and that actual values may not be small integers (akin to
my comment on the RESTCONF document).

[Ballot comment]
Please consider the comment from the TSV-ART review about the example DSCP value (Thanks Wes!). I actually would also appreciate to add a comment that this is an internal value that depends on the network configuration (in order to avoid that people just randomly copy this example value and suddenly always use 10)!

[Ballot comment]
Please also consider the comment from the TSV-ART review about the example DSCP value (Thanks Wes!). I actually would also appreciate to add a comment that this is an internal value that depends on the network configuration (in order to avoid that people just randomly copy this example value and suddenly always use 10)!

(Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

The IANA Functions Operator has reviewed draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-17, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any registry actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, we do not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
Senior IANA Services Specialist

The following Last Call announcement was sent out (ends 2019-04-12):

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC: ibagdona@gmail.com, draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, Kent Watsen , netconf-chairs@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Dynamic subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over NETCONF) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf)
to consider the following document: - 'Dynamic subscription to YANG Events
and Datastores over NETCONF'
  as Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2019-04-12. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of
the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document provides a NETCONF binding to the dynamic subscription
  capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push.

  RFC Editor note: please replace the four references to pre-RFC
  normative drafts with the actual assigned RFC numbers.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

[SHEPHERD] This document is a Proposed Standard document, and is
indicated in the title page as a "Standards Track" document.  This
is the proper designation for this RFC by WG consensus.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

[SHEPHERD]  From the Abstract:

  This document provides a NETCONF binding to the dynamic subscription
  capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push.

[SHEPHERD] From the Introduction:

  This document provides a binding for events streamed over the NETCONF
  protocol [RFC6241] for dynamic subscriptions as defined in
  [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].  In addition, as
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] is itself built upon
  [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], this document
  enables a NETCONF client to request via a dynamic subscription and
  receive updates from a YANG datastore located on a NETCONF server.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

[SHEPHERD] Nothing in the process is worth noting.  No decisions
were particularly rough.  There was a debate as to if this
RFC should define support for *configured* subscriptions, in
additional to dynamic subscriptions, which it does support, but
the WG consensus was to add support for configured subscriptions
at a later time.


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

[SHEPHERD] Unknown if there are any implementations of this
draft as yet. This document just went through a post-LC
YANG Doctor review (all issues raised were addressed):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-01-09/


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

[SHEPHERD] The Document Shepherd is Kent Watsen, with Qin Wu's
assistance. The Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas.   


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

[SHEPHERD] The shepherd has reviewed emails on the list, and tested
against `idnits`, and validated the YANG modules using both `pyang`
and `yanglint`.  The shepherd-assistant found a number of issues
that have been resolved in the current version.  Both the shepherd
and the assistant are comfortable with forwarding the document to
the IESG at this time.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

[SHEPHERD] The Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

[SHEPHERD] No review from a particular or from broader perspective is
required.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

[SHEPHERD] There are no specific concerns or issues that the Responsible
Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

SHEPHERD] Each author has just confirmed that any and all appropriate
IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.  Here is the thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/DwVn_uY_E5UGwyCWG8Kk1A-BFTI
Note: Alberto sent his response on on Feb 19, though it does not show
up in the mail archive...


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

[SHEPHERD] No IPR disclosure been filed that references this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

[SHEPHERD] Generally solid, with many being interested in and reviewing
this work. 


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

[SHEPHERD] No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme discontent.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

[SHEPHERD]
  - just a bunch of "weird spacing" false-positive warnings


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

[SHEPHERD] The document was reviewed by the YANG doctor assigned to it.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

[SHEPHERD] Yes, all references within this document been identified
as either normative or informative.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

[SHEPHERD] The only quazi-questionable normative references are to 
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications and ietf-netconf-yang-push,
which are being submitted to the IESG at the same time as this draft.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

[SHEPHERD] There are no downward normative references.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

[SHEPHERD] The publication of this document will not change the status
of any existing RFCs.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

[SHEPHERD] This document does not (and rightly so) contain an IANA
Considerations section.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

[SHEPHERD] There are no new IANA registries that require Expert review
for future allocations.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

[SHEPHERD] this document does not define a YANG module, so no YANG
module verification was performed.

As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up.

Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

[SHEPHERD] This document is a Proposed Standard document, and is
indicated in the title page as a "Standards Track" document.  This
is the proper designation for this RFC by WG consensus.


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
  and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
  an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
  or introduction.

[SHEPHERD]  From the Abstract:

  This document provides a NETCONF binding to the dynamic subscription
  capability of both subscribed notifications and YANG-Push.

[SHEPHERD] From the Introduction:

  This document provides a binding for events streamed over the NETCONF
  protocol [RFC6241] for dynamic subscriptions as defined in
  [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].  In addition, as
  [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] is itself built upon
  [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], this document
  enables a NETCONF client to request via a dynamic subscription and
  receive updates from a YANG datastore located on a NETCONF server.


Working Group Summary

  Was there anything in WG process that is worth noting? For
  example, was there controversy about particular points or
  were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
  rough?

[SHEPHERD] Nothing in the process is worth noting.  No decisions
were particularly rough.  There was a debate as to if this
RFC should define support for *configured* subscriptions, in
additional to dynamic subscriptions, which it does support, but
the WG consensus was to add support for configured subscriptions
at a later time.


Document Quality

  Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
  significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
  implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
  merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
  e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
  conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
  there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or other expert review,
  what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
  review, on what date was the request posted?

[SHEPHERD] Unknown if there are any implementations of this
draft as yet. This document just went through a post-LC
YANG Doctor review (all issues raised were addressed):

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16-yangdoctors-lc-rahman-2019-01-09/


Personnel

  Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area
  Director?

[SHEPHERD] The Document Shepherd is Kent Watsen, with Qin Wu's
assistance. The Responsible Area Director is Ignas Bagdonas.   


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd.  If this version of the document is not ready
for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to
the IESG.

[SHEPHERD] The shepherd has reviewed emails on the list, and tested
against `idnits`, and validated the YANG modules using both `pyang`
and `yanglint`.  The shepherd-assistant found a number of issues
that have been resolved in the current version.  Both the shepherd
and the assistant are comfortable with forwarding the document to
the IESG at this time.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

[SHEPHERD] The Shepherd has no concerns about the depth or breadth
of the reviews that have been performed.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS,
DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that
took place.

[SHEPHERD] No review from a particular or from broader perspective is
required.


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd
has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the
IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable
with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really
is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and
has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here.

[SHEPHERD] There are no specific concerns or issues that the Responsible
Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78
and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why.

SHEPHERD] Each author has just confirmed that any and all appropriate
IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed.  Here is the thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/DwVn_uY_E5UGwyCWG8Kk1A-BFTI
Note: Alberto sent his response on on Feb 19, though it does not show
up in the mail archive...


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document?
If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
disclosures.

[SHEPHERD] No IPR disclosure been filed that references this document.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? 

[SHEPHERD] Generally solid, with many being interested in and reviewing
this work. 


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate
email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a
separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.)

[SHEPHERD] No one has threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated
extreme discontent.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts
Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be
thorough.

[SHEPHERD]
  - just a bunch of "weird spacing" false-positive warnings


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.

[SHEPHERD] The document was reviewed by the YANG doctor assigned to it.


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?

[SHEPHERD] Yes, all references within this document been identified
as either normative or informative.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative
references exist, what is the plan for their completion?

[SHEPHERD] The only quazi-questionable normative references are to 
draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications and ietf-netconf-yang-push,
which are being submitted to the IESG at the same time as this draft.

(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)?
If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in
the Last Call procedure.

[SHEPHERD] There are no downward normative references.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed
in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not
listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the
part of the document where the relationship of this document to the
other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document,
explain why the WG considers it unnecessary.

[SHEPHERD] The publication of this document will not change the status
of any existing RFCs.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes
are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries.
Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly
identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a
detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a
reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226).

[SHEPHERD] This document does not (and rightly so) contain an IANA
Considerations section.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find
useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries.

[SHEPHERD] There are no new IANA registries that require Expert review
for future allocations.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

[SHEPHERD] this document does not define a YANG module, so no YANG
module verification was performed.

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Prieto , netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Hector Trevino , Alexander Clemm , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Sharon Chisholm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: Alberto Prieto , netconf-chairs@ietf.org, Hector Trevino , Alexander Clemm , Ambika Tripathy , Eric Voit , Sharon Chisholm , Einar Nilsen-Nygaard

Request for posting confirmation emailed to previous authors: netconf-chairs@ietf.org, "Alexander Clemm" , "Einar Nilsen-Nygaard" , "Hector Trevino" , "Alberto Prieto" , "Sharon Chisholm" , "Eric Voit" , "Ambika Tripathy"