Early Review of draft-ietf-netconf-notif-envelope-03
review-ietf-netconf-notif-envelope-03-opsdir-early-clarke-2025-10-22-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-notif-envelope |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 05) | |
| Type | Early Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-10-24 | |
| Requested | 2025-09-11 | |
| Requested by | Mithun Thai Valaphil | |
| Authors | Alex Huang Feng , Pierre Francois , Thomas Graf , Benoît Claise | |
| I-D last updated | 2026-07-21 (Latest revision 2026-05-18) | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Early review of -02
by Jürgen Schönwälder
(diff)
Yangdoctors Early review of -05 by Ebben Aries Opsdir Early review of -03 by Joe Clarke (diff) |
|
| Comments |
This document is currently in WGLC. |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Joe Clarke |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Early review on draft-ietf-netconf-notif-envelope by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/LlNOz1aPpnxr6pHg54AkKCIvMPI | |
| Reviewed revision | 03 (document currently at 05) | |
| Result | Has issues | |
| Completed | 2025-10-22 |
review-ietf-netconf-notif-envelope-03-opsdir-early-clarke-2025-10-22-00
I have been asked to review this document on behalf of the OPS directorate. This document specifies a new envelope header for YANG notifications that can be extended with richer metadata beyond eventTime and used in other encodings. The document is well-written and easy to follow. As such, I found it easy to spot what I feel are two points to discuss. I hesitated to mark this "has issues". I really wanted a DISCUSS-like option just so I could get some authors' and WG members thoughts. 1. I appreciate your Operational Considerations concerning a mix of "new" and "old" collectors. However, since the knob to control this new envelope is network element-wide, I feel something should be said in this section that separating collectors MUST be done at a network element level. But that begs the question, why? Why can't this be controlled at a subscription level? I'm sure it was considered, but I don't recall seeing text that explained why this was a sub-optimal choice. 2. MINOR: As it stands, it makes sense that all subscriptions would be terminated when toggling `enable-notification-envelope`, but would it possibly less astonishing to operators that toggle this if implementors force all subscriptions to already be terminated for the config to be accepted? Baring that, I would strongly recommend you add the text about subscriptions being terminated to the description of this boolean in the YANG module. And also, see #1 as to why this can't be done more gracefully at a per-subscription or per client level. Finally, one nit: Section 1.1: s/messsage/message/