IETF Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09
review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09-genart-lc-davies-2025-11-21-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type IETF Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2025-12-03
Requested 2025-11-19
Authors Alex Huang Feng , Pierre Francois , Kent Watsen
I-D last updated 2026-06-15 (Latest revision 2025-12-16)
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Early review of -06 by Jürgen Schönwälder (diff)
Opsdir Early review of -07 by Ran Chen (diff)
Tsvart Early review of -06 by Joerg Ott (diff)
Genart IETF Last Call review of -09 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Dnsdir IETF Last Call review of -09 by Peter van Dijk (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Elwyn B. Davies
State Completed
Request IETF Last Call review on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/5gIKpPe0wGVzC-7ZRaXYvOXZyvQ
Reviewed revision 09 (document currently at 10)
Result Ready
Completed 2025-11-21
review-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09-genart-lc-davies-2025-11-21-00
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://wiki.ietf.org/en/group/gen/GenArtFAQ>.

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server-09
Reviewer: Elwyn Davies
Review Date: 2025-11-21
IETF LC End Date: 2025-12-03
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: Ready.  The document is clear and appears to be in compliance wth the
conventions and standards for YANG documents.  There are two trivial nits which
are effectively inherited from draft I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. I habve not
run any YANG parsers on the document components.

Major issues:
None

Minor issues:
None

Nits/editorial comments:
s4, para 1: This para should probably be marked for removal by the RFC Editor
on completion.

s4, para 3: [Serious nerdishness] The phrase "The Network Configuration Access
Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]" is inherited from I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis. 
The acronym NACM did not immediately seem obvious - why not NCACM?  Looking at
the RFC8407bis draft. I would suggest this should say "The Network
Configuration (NETCONF) Access Control Model (NACM) [RFC8341]". I gather the
NACM acronym has historc value and was not alteed when RESTCONF was
incorporated.  I should probably make a comment on I-D.ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis.