Early Review of draft-ietf-netconf-adaptive-subscription-07
review-ietf-netconf-adaptive-subscription-07-yangdoctors-early-clarke-2025-04-11-00

I have been asked to review this document on behalf of YANG Doctors.  It's an
early review, and the module herein is not a disaster :-) (plus there are
implementations!), so I think On The Right Track is appropriate.  I did find
some issues.

First, why not call this "ietf-adaptive-subscription" to match the text in the
I-D?  You already have a _very_ short prefix.  I don't think leaving off the
"-tive" is saving much.  Plus, I think the full name is clearer.

With respect to the "meatiest" leaf in here, xpath-eval-criterion, I have a few
issues.  First, given the recent discussions on netmod@ perhaps you should
leave off "xpath-" as the node's type is already xpath.  In fact, I would
recommend calling this "eval-criteria" because the XPath expression can
consider multiple criteria in a boolean expression.  But my biggest comment is
that you need to amend the node's description with the text from the draft to
properly describe its evaluation context.  That is, text from Section 3 needs
to find its way into this node's description per the requirements of
yang:xpath1.0.

In your node, period-update-time in the adaptive-period-update notification,
you refer to xpath-external-eval where I think you mean xpath-eval-criterion
(and possibly then the new name).

I find the description for case adaptive-periodic (in both cases) a little
clumsy.  What about:

"The publisher is requested to periodically notify the receiver regarding the
current values of the datastore as defined by the selection filter.  The
periodicity of these notifications is determined by adaptive criteria."

That is more in line with the existing descriptions for the choice cases.  And
maybe your container should be named "adaptive-periodic" (like the case) and
the list can be "period".  These are just suggestions, mainly to keep things
more inline with the existing yp choices.

I am confused as to how anchor-time works.  I've read the text many times, but
I still don't quite see it.  Perhaps your example (thanks for that!) could make
use of this to better illustrate the use.

In your Section 6, you have a few typos.  These are very minor since this
section won't make the final RFC:

s/becuase/because/
s/disgnose/diagnose/
s/hight/high/

In Section 7, one typo:

s/upates/updates/

On less of a YANG Doc note, have you considered adding the XPaths and values to
the adaptive-period-update notification?  I ask this because from a
troubleshooting standpoint it might be useful to know (e.g., if the criteria to
adapt the subscription was not included in the subscribed XPath) what
specifically caused the period to change.