Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-06
review-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-06-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-12-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-06 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 06 (document currently at 33) | |
| Type | IETF Last Call Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2021-04-16 | |
| Requested | 2021-03-26 | |
| Requested by | Mahesh Jethanandani | |
| Authors | Kent Watsen | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-02-11 (Latest revision 2026-02-04) | |
| Completed reviews |
Secdir IETF Last Call review of -16
by Shivan Kaul Sahib
(diff)
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -06 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff) Httpdir Telechat review of -23 by Mark Nottingham (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Ladislav Lhotka |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/mRr3K3sovyBrB9KUB_yrWGesY0E | |
| Reviewed revision | 06 (document currently at 33) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2021-04-12 |
review-ietf-netconf-http-client-server-06-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2021-04-12-00
The document defines two YANG modules - ietf-http-client and ietf-http-server - that belong to a relatively complex set of modules. The modules are well designed and nicely documented, both in the descriptions and document text. **** Comments - Sections 2.1.3 and 3.1.3: the sentence 'The "..." module does not contain any protocol-accessible nodes.' is misleading in that the modules do define data nodes that are intended to be protocol accessible after the corresponding grouping is used. I know this is a part of the NETCONF/YANG lingo, but another formulation that clearly says what's going on might be preferable. - Sections 2.2 and 3.2: the XML snippets use document elements "http-client" and "http-server", but these containers are not defined in the corresponding modules. This is confusing, my suggestion is to rewrite the examples in the JSON representation where no such top-level node is necessary. - Placeholders BBBB, CCCC and EEEE are defined in Editorial Note but never used **** Nits - RFC 7950 is cited repeatedly (4 times) in a general context, e.g. whenever YANG 1.1 is mentioned. It should suffice to use the citation at the first appearance.