I have copied the WG mailing list, so they are aware of the comments. Thanks for your review and comments Suresh. I will study them, but I do expect that Sharon and/or Hector come up first with answers to your questions.
Bert Wijnen document shepherd. > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: Suresh Krishnan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Verzonden: donderdag 7 februari 2008 23:33 > Aan: General Area Review Team; Sharon Chisholm; Hector Trevino; > Romascanu, Dan (Dan); [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-11.txt > > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for > draft-ietf-netconf-notification-11.txt > > > For background on Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Summary: This draft is well written and is almost ready for publication, > but I have a couple of issues. > > > Meta issues > =========== > > * Aggregation: Is there a way by which the client can specify the > granularity with which it receives the notifications. i.e. Can the > client request merging of multiple internal events into a single > notification message? The following text in Section 3.2 > > "At some point after the NETCONF server receives the internal event > from a stream, it is converted to an appropriate XML encoding ..." > > make me think that this should be possible. Is this in the scope of this > spec? > > * Modification: How can a client modify a subscription? Section 6.5 > talks about how it cannot be done, but there is no mention of whether > this is even possible to do. If not this must be clearly specified. > > Minor > ===== > > * Section 2.1.1 > > What happens if a stopTime is specified and a startTime is not? Does the > replay begin starting now or is the request rejected? This needs to be > clarified. > > * Section 3.2.1 > > The term "Event Stream Definition" is used in Section 3.2 before it is > defined here. Is it possible to move this somewhere further up. > > > Editorial > ========= > > * Introduction > > The text starting with "[NETCONF] can be conceptually..." and the > following diagram are copied verbatim from RFC4741, which is listed as a > normative reference. Is it necessary to keep it here? > > > Cheers > Suresh > > > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
