Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05
review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 21) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
Deadline | 2019-10-29 | |
Requested | 2019-10-07 | |
Requested by | Kent Watsen | |
Authors | Balázs Lengyel , Alexander Clemm , Benoît Claise | |
I-D last updated | 2019-10-29 | |
Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -05
by Ladislav Lhotka
(diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -17 by Barry Leiba (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Ladislav Lhotka |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/iKJsu7uz_Hc_WYm1yLmbwzsVJlw | |
Reviewed revision | 05 (document currently at 21) | |
Result | Ready w/nits | |
Completed | 2019-10-29 |
review-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05-yangdoctors-lc-lhotka-2019-10-29-00
***** Section 2. Introduction - Paragraph 3: the use of MAY is inappropriate: publishers indeed may have limitations, but this should follow from RFC 8641, and this document should take it as a fact. ***** Section 3. Notification Capability Model - The use of RFC 2119 terms is again questionable: I understand the ietf-notification-capabilities data as an optional aid for the implementors, but requiring that "The file SHALL be available in implementation time ..." is way too strict. ***** Section 3.2. YANG Module - This is one of the cases where it would be helpful to know which of the imported modules, such as ietf-netconf-acm, is also intended to be implemented. This may be addressed in a future YANG version (see issue #95 in yang-next), until then I would suggest to include YANG library data describing a minimum implementation. ***** Appendix A. Instance data examples - Example in Fig. 2: the <datastore> element has an incorrect XML namespace (of the ietf-datastores module). - Many enum values are invalid because they contain leading/trailing whitespace. It would be better to encode the examples in JSON.