Early Review of draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination-07
review-ietf-netconf-list-pagination-07-opsdir-early-linkova-2025-05-10-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 10) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-05-01 | |
| Requested | 2025-04-10 | |
| Requested by | Kent Watsen | |
| Authors | Kent Watsen , Qin Wu , Per Andersson , Olof Hagsand , Hongwei Li | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-02-12 (Latest revision 2026-02-12) | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors IETF Last Call review of -03
by Ladislav Lhotka
(diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -07 by Ladislav Lhotka (diff) Opsdir Early review of -07 by Jen Linkova (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Jen Linkova |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-netconf-list-pagination by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/qf_7sVkgtQ0goh5uTm8m1dpQBK4 | |
| Reviewed revision | 07 (document currently at 10) | |
| Result | Ready | |
| Completed | 2025-05-10 |
review-ietf-netconf-list-pagination-07-opsdir-early-linkova-2025-05-10-00
First of all my apologies for a delay. The document is nicely written and easy to understand even by someone who is not an YANG expert. I believe that the mechanism defined in this document solves an important operational issue and would allow operators to use YANG-driven protocols more effient, especially when dealing with large amount of data. I have a few minor comments and questions. 1. Section 3.1.3 says that "If a query supplies "locale" and not "sort-by", error-type application and error-tag "invalid-value" is returned". At the same time, neither section 3.1.1 nor 3.1.2 define what the server is supposed to return if the query parameter is not supported. Is it intentional/defined somewhere else? (My apologies, I'm not very familiar with the area, so maybe it's obvious for an educated reader?) 2. Section3.1.6 "The "cursor" query parameter MUST be supported for all "config true" lists and SHOULD be supported for all "config false" lists. It is however optional to support the "cursor" query parameter for "config false" lists and the support must be signaled by the server per list." May I suggest slight rephrasing, for example: The "cursor" query parameter MUST be supported for all "config true" lists and SHOULD be supported for all "config false" lists. As the "cursor" query parameter support for "config false" lists is optional, the support must be signaled by the server per list." Also, the second sentence uses lower-case must. Is it intentional? Cheers, Jen Linkova