Hi Kent, Apologies! I didn't update the body of the mail to indicate it’s a final review in GitHub. Please see the repo here:
https://github.com/rfc-editor-drafts/FinalReview-rfc10011 Please feel free to reply to the issues via GitHub. I will work on adjusting the RPC-edits PR based on your notes below and let you know when the updates have been incorporated. Regarding this one: > 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? I will rearview these, but I believe they are consistent based on a quick scan. I see “restconf-client” and “restconf-server” mostly used when they are part of a name (e.g., grouping or node name), for example: module ietf-restconf-client { namespace "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-restconf-client"; feature central-restconf-client-supported { "The 'central-restconf-client-supported' feature indicates the top-level 'restconf-client' node. the top-level 'restconf-client' node."; The "ietf-restconf-server" module defines the following "grouping" * restconf-server-grouping * restconf-server-listen-stack-grouping * restconf-server-callhome-stack-grouping * restconf-server-app-grouping Otherwise, RESTCONF-client and RESTCONF-server (with a hyphen) appear when acting as compound adjectives before the noun (e.g., RESTCONF-client configuration). However, a hyphen would not be used if the noun appears first (e.g., configuration of a RESTCONF client). I apologize again for the messy start to Final Review. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Sandy > On Jul 14, 2026, at 5:01 PM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]
