Telechat Review of draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-15
review-ietf-netconf-https-notif-15-httpdir-telechat-nottingham-2024-02-02-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 15) | |
Type | Telechat Review | |
Team | HTTP Directorate (httpdir) | |
Deadline | 2024-02-05 | |
Requested | 2024-02-02 | |
Requested by | Murray Kucherawy | |
Authors | Mahesh Jethanandani , Kent Watsen | |
I-D last updated | 2024-02-02 | |
Completed reviews |
Httpdir Telechat review of -15
by Mark Nottingham
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -06 by Acee Lindem (diff) Secdir Last Call review of -13 by Leif Johansson (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Mark Nottingham |
State | Completed | |
Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif by HTTP Directorate Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 15 | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2024-02-02 |
review-ietf-netconf-https-notif-15-httpdir-telechat-nottingham-2024-02-02-00
## In 1. Introduction: > Using HTTPS, which is a secure form of HTTP Semantics [RFC9110], maximizes transport-level interoperability, while allowing for a variety of encoding options. The wording around "HTTP Semantics is odd. I'd suggest just: > Using HTTPS [RFC9110], which maximizes transport-level interoperability, while allowing for a variety of encoding options. ## In 1. Introduction: > The protocol supports HTTP/1.1: Message Syntax and Routing [RFC9112] and, HTTP/2 [RFC9113]. While the payload does not change between these versions of HTTP and HTTP/3 [RFC9114], the underlying transport does. Since NETCONF does not support QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport [RFC9000], support for HTTP/3 [RFC9114], is considered out of scope of this document. This doesn't make any sense; whether or not NETCONF supports QUIC is immaterial if you're using HTTP as a substrate. See also BCP56 Section 4.1. All of this text should be removed. ## In 1. Introduction: > This document defines support for JSON and XML should be > This document defines support for JSON and XML content ## In 1. Introduction: > This document requires that the publisher is a "server" (e.g., a NETCONF or RESTCONF server), but does not assume that the receiver is a NETCONF or RESTCONF server. It does expect the receiver to be an HTTPS server to receive the notifications. Please introduce the term 'receiver' more clearly (perhaps with a reference?) ## In 3.3: > The receiver responds with a "200 (OK)" message ... and in 4.2: > The response on success SHOULD be "204 (No Content)". This style of specification often leads to interoperability problems, because some clients will interpret this as a requirement for the status code to be 200, when what is received on the wire may be something else (e.g., a 304 from a cache). See BCP56 Section 4.6.