Subject: Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22

From: Stewart Bryant via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 13:40:42 -0700

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review result: Ready with Nits

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://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22
Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
Review Date: 2019-04-10
IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-12
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: A well written document with just a small nuber of minor matter in the
nits section that need to be considered.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 7895 (Obsoleted by RFC 8525)
============

SB> I assume that the ADs are happy with seven front page authors.

===========
 Abstract

   Via the mechanism described in this document, subscriber applications
SB> I am not sure if  starting a sentence with "via" is good English
SB> but I have not seen it done before.

===========
   Traditional approaches to providing visibility into managed entities
   from remote have been built on polling.
SB> from remote what?

===========

3.10.  On-Change Notifiable Datastore Nodes

   In some cases, a publisher supporting on-change notifications may not
   be able to push on-change updates for some object types.  Reasons for
   this might be that the value of the datastore node changes frequently
   (e.g., [RFC8343]'s in-octets counter), that small object changes are
   frequent and meaningless (e.g., a temperature gauge changing 0.1
   degrees), or that the implementation is not capable of on-change
   notification for a particular object.

SB> I could not see the parameter range specifiy what is regarded as trivial
SB> specified in the model. It seems that it perhaps ought to be.
===================

   The next figure depicts augmentations of module ietf-yang-push to the
   notifications that are specified in module ietf-subscribed-
   notifications.  The augmentations allow to include subscription
SB> s/allow to include/allow the inclusion of/
===============

---

From: "Alexander Clemm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 12:07:33 -0700

Hi Stewart,

Thank you for your comments!  Please find replies inline, <ALEX>

--- Alex

-----Original Message-----
From: netconf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Stewart Bryant via
Datatracker
Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 1:41 PM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked];
[email-masked]
Subject: [netconf] Genart last call review of
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22

Reviewer: Stewart Bryant

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.

Summary: A well written document with just a small nuber of minor matter in
the nits section that need to be considered.

Major issues: None

Minor issues: None

Nits/editorial comments:

<ALEX> We will update the reference.
</ALEX>

===========
 Abstract

   Via the mechanism described in this document, subscriber applications
SB> I am not sure if  starting a sentence with "via" is good English but 
SB> I have not seen it done before.

<ALEX> we think "via" is fine; if you prefer it to say "using", please let
us know and we will change it.  
</ALEX>

===========

<ALEX> from a remote system, a remote application, a remote location.  
I do think this is clear; if you prefer it to say "from a remote system" we
will change; please let us know if you would prefer to make that change.  
</ALEX>

===========

SB> I could not see the parameter range specifiy what is regarded as 
SB> trivial specified in the model. It seems that it perhaps ought to be.
===================

<ALEX> This will depend heavily on the object and its intended use.
Basically we are giving only reasons why an implementation might choose to
not support on-change notifications for a particular object.  Going deeper
into reasoning behind such implementation choices, what size would be
"small" or "large", and over what time interval, etc, would IMHO go beyond
the scope of this document.  We prefer not to make a change to the document.
(Please note that there is another draft on smart filters for push updates,
which might in the future add the ability for users to e.g. configure this
and other things.)
</ALEx>

<ALEX> We will make this change.
</ALEX>

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf