Requirements for Subscription to YANG Datastores
RFC 7923

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) Yes

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

I agree with Benoit about versioning (point #3).

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

I support Ben's and Stephen's DISCUSSes.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points.

The comments below are from my initial ballot. I think you've probably addressed most of them, but I am leaving them for reference:

- General: I support Stephen's DISCUSS

-2.2: What is the real scope of this work? Is it expected to supplant the mentioned mechanisms?

- 2.3: "We need a new pub-sub
   technology"
The shepherd write up mentioned a goal to use existing technologies. Is the point of this sentence to suggest that is not feasible?

- 4.1, 4th paragraph:
The MAY doesn't seem right--is this a statement of fact that the subscriber may have to resubscribe, or a requirement of the form that the service MAY force the subscriber to resubscribe? (Be careful with MAYs in requirements language--they imply unexpected things. For example, several requirements say a SUBSCRIBE MAY do something--do those imply that the service MUST allow the subscriber to do it ?)

-- 4.2.2, third bullet: The previous section said dampening periods MUST be supported.

- 4.2.1, third paragraph: This is a bit ambiguous. I think it means to change the what subtrees the subscription applies to, but could be interpreted to change the subtrees themselves.

- 4.2.6.4: Would a mechanism that allowed out-of-order delivery but gave the subscriber a way to reconstruct the order fulfill this requirement?

Nits:
- The shepherd write up suggests this is standards track. The draft and tracker both say informational. Please update the shepherd writ up.

-3, last paragraph: What's the difference between a "Push" and an "Update"?

-4.1: A forward reference to the subscription QoS section would be helpful.

-- Last paragraph, last sentence: Sentence doesn't parse.


- 4.2.8, third paragraph: I don't think that should be a 2119 MAY

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENT.

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

I support Stephen's discuss points.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

Thanks for the discussion!

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection