IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-19
review-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-18-opsdir-lc-qu-2026-04-03-01

I have reviewed version -19, which addressed my comments, so I'm revising the
review to "Ready".

Hi,

I have been selected as the Operational Directorate (opsdir) reviewer for this
Internet-Draft.

The Operational Directorate reviews all operational and management-related
Internet-Drafts to ensure alignment with operational best practices and that
adequate operational considerations are covered.

A complete set of _"Guidelines for Considering Operations and Management in
IETF Specifications"_ can be found at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-rfc5706bis/.

While these comments are primarily for the Operations and Management Area
Directors (Ops ADs), the authors should consider them alongside other feedback
received.

- Document: [Internet-Draft Name and Revision]

- Reviewer: [Your Name]

- Review Date: [Date]

- Intended Status: [Proposed Status, e.g., Standards Track]

---

## Summary

Choose one:

- Ready: No issues found. This document is ready for publication.

- Has Nits: This document is basically ready for publication but has nits that
should be considered prior to publication.

- Has Issues: I have some minor concerns about this document that I think
should be resolved before publication.

- Has Major Issues: I have significant concerns about this document and
recommend that the OPS ADs discuss these issues further with the authors.

## General Operational Comments Alignment with RFC 5706bis

Provide an overview of the draft’s operational feasibility, readability, and
alignment with RFC5706bis guidelines. Example:

> This document defines a mechanism for [X]. While the technical approach is
sound, Section [X] lacks clarity on how the mechanism would deploy.

> The Operational Considerations section (Section X) should be expanded to
address [Z].

Explicitly evaluate compliance with operational guidelines (optional but
recommended):

For example the check list:

- Fault Management: Are failure detection/recovery mechanisms specified?

- Configuration Management: Are configuration changes to enable/disable the
feature clearly defined?

- Performance Monitoring: Are metrics (e.g., latency, resource usage) clearly
identified?

| Review Item                | RFC 5706 Considerations
|-------------------------------
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Deployment                     | Does the document include a description of
how this protocol or technology is going to be deployed and managed? |
Installation and Initial Setup | Are configuration parameters clearly
identified and do they have reasonable default values? | Migration Path        
        | Is a path to migrate existing configuration clearly articualted? Are
there any backward compatibility issues? | Requirements on Other Protocols|
What other protocol operations are expected to be performed relative to the new
protocol or technology? | Impact on Network Operation    | Will the new
protocol significantly increase traffic load on existing networks or affect the
control plane? | Verifying Correct Operation    | For example, how can one test
end-to-end connectivity and throughput?

For routing protocols, example as

[RFC 6123 – Inclusion of Manageability Sections in Path Computation Element
(PCE) Working Group Drafts](https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6123.html)

## Major Issues

List critical problems blocking publication (e.g., protocol flaws, missing
operational safeguards, or lack of manageability considerations). Include
section/paragraph references.

- Example:

 > Section 4.2 describes [feature] but does not specify how operators can
 monitor its performance (RFC 5706 Section 3.6). This omission could lead to
 undiagnosed failures in production networks.

- If none:

 > No major issues found.

---

## Minor Issues

List non-blocking but important clarifications (e.g., ambiguous terminology or
incomplete examples).

- Example:

 > Section 2.1 uses "node" without defining its scope (physical/virtual). Add a
 reference to RFC 8345 for consistency.

- If none:

 > No minor issues found.

---

## Nits

Optional editorial suggestions (e.g., acronym expansions or grammar fixes).

- Example:

 > Abstract: Expand "NFV" on first use.

 > Section 3.1: "it’s" -> "its".

---