Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04
review-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2017-09-11-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04 |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | 04 (document currently at 09) | |
| Type | Last Call Review | |
| Team | YANG Doctors (yangdoctors) | |
| Deadline | 2017-07-31 | |
| Requested | 2017-07-10 | |
| Requested by | Mehmet Ersue | |
| Authors | Andy Bierman , Martin Björklund | |
| I-D last updated | 2017-09-11 | |
| Completed reviews |
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -04
by Radek Krejčí
(diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar (diff) Genart Telechat review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Radek Krejčí |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis by YANG Doctors Assigned | |
| Reviewed revision | 04 (document currently at 09) | |
| Result | Ready w/nits | |
| Completed | 2017-09-11 |
review-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2017-09-11-00
Hi, I have been assigned to review draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis as YANG Doctor. The document is almost ready to publish, I have just the following few comments: - section 1.1 Terminology - access control rule: s/protocol operation/access operation/ - "NETCONF transport" is mentioned at several places within the draft and model in connection with information about the user. What about the RESTCONF transport, shouldn't it be also mentioned or (better) shouldn't it be changed to a general transport of the protocols accessing the datastore? - /nacm/rule-list/rule/rule-type in schema: I would consider to explicitely state into which case the action and notification defined in data subtree belong to. Especially the notification placement can be confusing at the first sight since there is the "notification" case.