RFC Editor, thank you! Before providing comments, I'm confused as to why I'm provided comments this way, as opposed via GitHub. At least, I thought that, when invited to the GitHub repo, that's what was going to occur.
I reviewed the side-by-side diff, and the text/pdf/html formats, and have the following comments: Everywhere (capitalization insensitive) "RESTCONF client" vs "RESTCONF-client" (with hyphen) "RESTCONF server" vs "RESTCONF-server" (with hyphen) There is nearly equal number of instances of each of these forms Should one form be used throughout? In both Section 2.3 and Section 3.3: OLD: WG Web: <https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf> NEW: WG Web: https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/netconf Notes: Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9907#appendix-B In both Section 2.3 and Section 3.3: Given that some RFCs numbers were updated, the list of imported YANG modules (e.g., import ietf-yang-types) is no longer sorted by RFC-number. This is a convention of my own creation. I like the "import" statements to be order for readability. YANG-processors are insensitive to order. In Section 4.1 and Section 4.2: The last sentence of the 2nd paragraph likely should be updated per this message: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/OfrCjSq5GohPGFO-sBEJQEHBh7c/ Note that there is a typo in Med's message: "NEW/NEW" was meant to be "OLD/NEW" In Section 2.1.2.3 and Section 3.1.2.4: In the tree-diagram, a few lines print the type (i.e., "string") way over near the Right-column. It looks kind of strange. Recommend, if you can, removing some of the SPACE characters so those lines look more like the others around them. This review does not respond to any of the 21 instances of the "[rfced]" comments in the XML text. The message received below says that another email will be sent containing them. I will wait to receive that email before replying to them. Oh wait, I just noticed that there are 22 GitHub Issues listed here: https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10011/issues. Should I instead respond to the issues on GitHub? PS: thank you for fixing the RFC-numbering issue last week! Kent // author > On Jul 13, 2026, at 2:04 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > *****IMPORTANT***** > > RFC Author(s): > -------------- > > Final Review for RFC-to-be 10011 <draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server> > > Your document is now available for Final Review (previously AUTH48). Once it > has been > reviewed and approved by you and all coauthors, it will be published as an > RFC. > If an author is no longer available, there are several remedies; > see the Unavailable Authors section > (https://authors.ietf.org/rfc-publication-process#unavailable-authors). > > You and you coauthors are responsible for engaging other parties > (e.g., Contributors or Working Group) as necessary before providing > your approval. > > Planning your review > --------------------- > > Please review the following aspects of your document: > > * RFC Editor questions > > Please review and resolve any questions raised by the RFC Editor > that have been included in the XML file as comments marked as > follows: > > <!-- [rfced] ... --> > > These questions will also be sent in a subsequent email. > > * Changes submitted by coauthors > > Please ensure that you review any changes submitted by your > coauthors. We assume that if you do not speak up that you > agree to changes submitted by your coauthors. > > * Content > > Please review the full content of the document, as this cannot > change once the RFC is published. Please pay particular attention to: > - IANA considerations updates (if applicable) > - contact information > - references > > * Copyright notices and legends > > Please review the copyright notice and legends as defined in > RFC 5378 and the Trust Legal Provisions > (TLP – https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). > > * Semantic markup > > Please review the markup in the XML file to ensure that elements of > content are correctly tagged. For example, ensure that <sourcecode> > and <artwork> are set correctly. See details at > <https://authors.ietf.org/rfcxml-vocabulary>. > > * Formatted output > > Please review the PDF, HTML, and TXT files to ensure that the > formatted output, as generated from the markup in the XML file, is > reasonable. Please note that the TXT will have formatting > limitations compared to the PDF and HTML. > > > Submitting changes > ------------------ > > To submit changes, please reply to this email using 'REPLY ALL' as all > the parties CCed on this message need to see your changes. The parties > include: > > * your coauthors > > * [email protected] (the RPC team) > > * other document participants, depending on the stream (e.g., > IETF Stream participants are your working group chairs, the > responsible ADs, and the document shepherd). > > * [email protected], which is an archival mailing list > to preserve discussion about the document while in the RPC editorial > queue; it is not an active discussion list: > > * More info: > > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-announce/yb6lpIGh-4Q9l2USxIAe6P8O4Zc > > * The archive itself: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/ > > * Note: If only absolutely necessary, you may temporarily opt out > of the archiving of messages (e.g., to discuss a sensitive matter). > If needed, please add a note at the top of the message that you > have dropped the address. When the discussion is concluded, > [email protected] will be re-added to the CC list and > its addition will be noted at the top of the message. > > You may submit your changes in one of two ways: > > An update to the provided XML file > — OR — > An explicit list of changes in this format > > Section # (or indicate Global) > > OLD: > old text > > NEW: > new text > > You do not need to reply with both an updated XML file and an explicit > list of changes, as either form is sufficient. > > We will ask a stream manager to review and approve any changes that seem > beyond editorial in nature, e.g., addition of new text, deletion of text, > and technical changes. Information about stream managers can be found in > the FAQ. Editorial changes do not require approval from a stream manager. > > > Approving for publication > -------------------------- > > To approve your RFC for publication, please reply to this email stating > that you approve this RFC for publication. Please use 'REPLY ALL', > as all the parties CCed on this message need to see your approval. > > > Files > ----- > > The files are available here: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10011.xml > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10011.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10011.pdf > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10011.txt > > Diff file of the text: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10011-diff.html > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10011-rfcdiff.html (side by side) > > Diff of the XML: > https://www.rfc-editor.org/authors/rfc10011-xmldiff1.html > > > Tracking progress > ----------------- > > Details on the status of your Final Review are here: > https://queue.rfc-editor.org/final-review/rfc10011/ > > Please let us know if you have any questions. > > Thank you for your cooperation, > > RFC Editor > > -------------------------------------- > RFC 10011 (draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server) > > Title : A YANG Data Model for RESTCONF Clients and Servers > Author(s) : K. Watsen > WG Chair(s) : Kent Watsen, Per Andersson > Area Director(s) : Mohamed Boucadair, Mahesh Jethanandani
-- auth48archive mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
