Dynamic Subscription to YANG Events and Datastores over RESTCONF
RFC 8650
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
Roman Danyliw (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS and COMMENTs.
Éric Vyncke No Objection
(Ignas Bagdonas; former steering group member) Yes
(Adam Roach; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my discuss points!
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
= Section 9 =
"Access control must be set so that only someone
with proper access permissions, and perhaps even HTTP session has
the ability to access this resource."
There is a grammar error in this sentence -- "perhaps even HTTP session" doesn't follow from the antecedent.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Adam’s DISCUSS point on Section 3.3.
(Benjamin Kaduk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my Discuss points!
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 4: Based on the QoS discussion for draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications weight is not really a a priority in the terms people think of it. It only provides a weight for bandwidth allocation. o take any existing subscription "priority", as specified by the "weighting" leaf node in [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and copy it into the HTTP2 stream weight, [RFC7540] section 5.3, and I would recommend that the use of "priority" is reformualted here to reflect that aspect. o take any existing subscription "dependency", as specified by the "dependency" leaf node in [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and use the HTTP2 stream for the parent subscription as the HTTP2 stream dependency, [RFC7540] section 5.3.1, of the dependent subscription. What is not obivous to me is that just because that a subscription exists at the publisher that it is going over the same HTTP/2 connection and thus there might be nothing for the dependency to point at that is relevant for the mechanism described in RFC 7540. I didn't even find a recommendation that the receiver (subscriber) should actually re-use the HTTP/2 connection for all communication with the same publisher.
(Martin Vigoureux; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
One question (and this is probably just because of my lack of detailed knowledge about RESTCONF): Sec 4 says: "To meet subscription quality of service promises, the publisher MUST take any existing subscription "dscp" and apply it to the DSCP marking in the IP header." What does "existing subscription "dscp"" mean here? Related update: please also consider the comment from the TSV-ART review about the example DSCP value (Thanks Wes!). I actually would also appreciate to add a comment that this is an internal value that depends on the network configuration (in order to avoid that people just randomly copy this example value and suddenly always use 10)!
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection