On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani < [email protected]> wrote:
> Stewart, > > On Oct 24, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Stewart Bryant <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review result: Ready > > 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 wait for direction from your > document shepherd or AD before posting a new version of the draft. > > For more information, please see the FAQ at > > <https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Document: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-07 > Reviewer: Stewart Bryant > Review Date: 2017-10-24 > IETF LC End Date: 2017-10-25 > IESG Telechat date: 2017-10-26 > > Summary: A well written document that is ready for publication > > Major issues: None > > Minor issues: None > > Nits/editorial comments: > > These are really minor but I notices them during the review. > > Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 2.2 (simplicity have a lot of overlapping > content. Perhaps they could be merged. > > > How about this? > > OLD: > > There is concern that a complicated ACM will not be widely deployed > because it is too hard to use. It needs to be easy to do simple > things and possible to do complex things, instead of hard to do > everything. > > Configuration of the access control system needs to be as simple as > possible. Simple and common tasks need to be easy to configure and > require little expertise or domain-specific knowledge. Complex tasks > are possible using additional mechanisms, which may require > additional expertise. > > > NEW: > > There is concern that a complicated ACM will not be widely deployed > because it is too hard to use. Configuration of the access control > > system needs to be as simple as possible. Simple and common tasks > > need to be easy to configure and require little expertise or > > domain-specific knowledge. Complex tasks are possible using additional > > mechanisms, which may require additional expertise. > > > > > OK with me > "This choice matches if all leafs present in the rule match the request." > Maybe > it is different in C/S but the plural of leaf is usually leaves. > > > I see two references to leafs in the model. Maybe we could change them as > follows: > > OLD: > > "This choice matches if all leafs present in the rule > match the request. If no leafs are present, the > choice matches all requests."; > > > > NEW: > > "This choice matches if all leaves present in the rule > match the request. If no leaves are present, the > choice matches all requests."; > > > Actually the term "leafs" is used 31 times in RFC 7950. The term "leaves" is used zero times. I think the same is true in all existing YANG-related RFCs. > > Mahesh Jethanandani > [email protected] > > > Andy
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
