YANG Patch Media Type
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-14
Yes
(Benoît Claise)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2016-10-29 for -12)
Unknown
Thank you for a well written document. A couple of small nits in your media type registration: 4.2.1. Media Type application/yang-patch+xml Subtype name: yang-patch Should be "yang-patch+xml" Encoding considerations: 8-bit Each conceptual YANG data node is encoded according to the XML Encoding Rules and Canonical Format for the specific YANG data node type defined in [RFC7950]. In addition, the "yang-patch" YANG Patch template found in [RFCXXXX] defines the structure of a YANG Patch request. If you are allowing any of UTF-16 encodings, then the above is not correct and should say "Binary". Fragment identifier considerations: Fragment identifiers for this type are not defined. I suggest you just say "The same as for application/xml". It would be good if you register a new file extension for this media type.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -12)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-11-03 for -12)
Unknown
Update: I've cleared my discuss bases on the authors' intent to clarify that yang-patch is intended to be atomic regardless of the underlying protocol. -2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: is the message body mentioned in the last sentence the same as the one described by the media type in the previous sentence? That is, are we talking about one body part, or two? If one, the ordering of the 2nd and 3rd sentence is a bit confusing to me. -2.2, tree diagram: If edit-id is optional, how are errors identified if it is not present? -2.6, first paragraph: "...RESTCONF server SHOULD return a "yang-patch-status" message." What if it doesn't? (I.e. Why not MUST?) -2.7, 2nd paragraph: "... SHOULD return a "yang-patch-status" message." What if it doesn't? Editorial: -2, first bullet: s/at within/within -2, Accept-Patch example: The example seems misplaced, as it seems to apply to the text two paragraphs back, not the immediately proceeding paragraph.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-12-02)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my prior discuss question.
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-11-03 for -12)
Unknown
This document may have the clearest terminology section I've ever seen in a draft. Thank you all for that! I have the same question as Ben did in his Discuss, about just how atomic a patch operation is. I'll watch the discussion in that thread.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-11-03 for -12)
Unknown
- section 2: I'm not clear what that example of Accept-Patch is telling me. (And if that's meant to be a figure then a caption and figure number would be good.) - 2.2: How do you ensure a patch-id is unique? In what scope? Random idea: you could specify a way to make these unique if you hashed a representation of the current resource and the patch data and the date/resource URI or something. And that might have nice properties for auditing. Think of "git blame" etc.:-) It might be possible to do a similar thing for edit-id too I guess. (Note that I'm only suggesting this as an informative bit of spec, i.e. as a "here's a good way to do it" kind of thing.) - section 5: you very reasonably say that a server SHOULD "prevent system disruption due to excessive resource consumption" but you don't say how to do that. Is that ok? At least some references would help implementers not go so wrong I think. (Sorry, I don't have such references to hand.)
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -12)
Unknown