Hi Rob,
Thanks for your detailed review.
A new draft version has been posted.
URL:https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17.txt
Status:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities/
Htmlized:https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities
Diff:https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-17
See the justifications below.
On 6/21/2021 10:45 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) wrote:
Hi,
Here is my AD review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabiltiies-16
Thanks for this draft, sorry for the delay in reviewing. It looks like it is
in good shape.
I think that most of my comments are minor or cosmetic suggestions to
potentially improve the phrasing of the text.
1.
Abstract:
The module "ietf-system-capabilities" provides a placeholder
structure that can be used to discover YANG related system
capabilities for servers. The module can be used to report
capability information from the server at run-time or implementation-
time, per the YANG Instance Data File Format.
Suggest "by making use of" rather than "per".
DONE.
2.
1. Introduction
There is a need to publish this capability information as it is part
of the contract between the server and client.
Suggest "contract" -> "API contract".
DONE
3.
There is a need to publish this capability information as it is part
of the contract between the server and client. Examples include
maximum size of data that can be stored or transferred, information
about counters (whether a node supports "on-change" telemetry), etc.
Such capabilities are often dependent on a vendor's implementation or
the available resources at deployment. Many such capabilities are
specific to either the complete system, individual YANG datastores
[RFC8342] or specific parts of the YANG schema, or even individual
data nodes. It is a goal of this document to provide a common way of
representing such capabilities in a format that is:
Suggest: maximum -> the maximum
"or specific" -> ", specific"
DONE
4.
o available in identical format both at implementation-time and run-
time
Suggest: "in an identical", and a period at the end.
DONE
5.
If the information is
not documented in a way available to the NMS designer, but only as
instance data from the network node once it is deployed, the NMS
implementation will be delayed
Suggest: "way available" => "way that is readily available"
DONE
6.
The network operator needs to plan his
management practices and NMS implementation before he even decides to
buy the specific network node type.
Suggest: "him" -> "their", "he even decides" -> "they decide"
DONE
7.
Run-time information is needed:
Suggest: Run-time capability information is needed:
DONE.
8.
o to check that capability information provided earlier, at
implementation-time is what the publisher has implemented.
Suggest: "at implementation-time, is"
DONE
9.
To find a capability value for a specific data node in a
specific datastore the user SHALL:
Please clarify that the capability value is selected by the relative path
to the datanode defining the capability. i.e., the same name/path must be
used both under the system level and per datastore level capabilties.
NEW SENTENCE.
"When stating a specific capability, the relative path for any specific
capability must be the same under the system-capabilities container and
under the per-node-capabilities list: the same grouping for defining the
capabilities MUST be used. "
10.
2) If the datastore entry is found within that entry, process all
per-node-capabilities entries in the order they appear in the list.
The first entry that specifies the specific capability and has a
node-selector selecting the specific data node defines the
capability value.
I'm not sure this is required, but perhaps consider adding text to make it clear
that longest path matching can be achieved by ordering more specific
matches before less specific matches.
ADDED "Note that longest path matching can be achieved by ordering more
specific matches before less specific ones"
under
list per-node-capabilities {
description
"Each list entry specifies capabilities for the selected
data nodes. The same capabilities apply for the data nodes
in the subtree below the selected nodes.
The system SHALL order the entries according to their
precedence. The order of the entries MUST NOT change unless
the underlying capabilities also change.";
We did NOT add next to "2) If the datastore entry is found within that
entry ..." because that section focuses on the user (as opposed to the
implementer on the server), as mentioned in "To find a capability value
for a specific data node in a
specific datastore the user SHALL:"
11.
// augmentation point for system level capabilities
Suggest: "Augmentation ... capabilities." I would also suggest using a block
style
comment so this doesn't get lost.
DONE.
12.
Only one specific datastore can be specified
e.g., ds:conventional is not allowed.";
Suggest changing to:
Only specific datastores can be specified.
E.g., ds:conventional, which represents a
set of configuration datastores, must not be
used";
DONE
13.
description
"A method to select all or some nodes within a datastore.";
"some or all" would flow better.
DONE
14.
// augmentation point for datastore or data node level
// capabilities
Suggest: "Augmentation ... capabilities." I would also suggest using a block
style
comment so this doesn't get lost.
DONE.
15.
5.2. YANG Module (ietf-notification-capabilities)
- capabilities related to the throughput of notification data
the publisher can support. (Note that for a specific
subscription the publisher MAY still allow only longer periods
or smaller updates depending on e.g., actual load conditions.)
Suggest: "data that the publisher"
"specific subscription, the"
"still allow" -> "allow"
"e.g., -> ", e.g., "
DONE.
16.
bit config-changes {
description
"The publisher is capable of sending
notifications for 'config false' nodes for the
relevant scope and subscription type.";
I presume that this should this be 'config true' nodes?
GOOD CATCH+
17.
description
"Type for defining whether 'on-change' or
'periodic' notifications are supported 'config false'
data nodes, 'config true' date nodes, no data nodes,
or all data nodes.
Suggest: "supported for 'config false'",
"date" -> "data
As an optional minor nit, it might be worth putting 'all' at the beginning
of the list rather than the end.
DONE.
18.
"Indicates the minimal update period that is
supported for a 'periodic' subscription.
A subscription request to the selected data
nodes with a smaller period than what this leaf
specifies will result in a 'period-unsupported' error.";
Is "will result" right here, or should it be "MAY result" or "is likely to
result"?
I.e., is the server guaranteeing that it won't handle a smaller update for the
given capability under any circumstance? The same question also applies
to the "supported-update-period".
DONE. "is likely to result"
19.
"The change types that can be excluded in
YANG-Push subscriptions.";
Suggest adding something like "for the selected data nodes."
DONE
20.
7.2. The YANG Module Names Registry
This document registers two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names
registry. Following the format in [RFC7950], the the following
registrations are requested:
This should be (along with a normative reference to RFC 6020):
This document registers two YANG modules in the YANG Module Names
registry [RFC6020]. Following the format in [RFC6020], the the following
registrations are requested:
DONE.
21.
9.2. Informative References
[RFC3688] Mealling, M., "The IETF XML Registry", BCP 81, RFC 3688,
DOI 10.17487/RFC3688, January 2004,
<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3688>.
This needs to be a normative reference (for the IANA registry) definition.
DONE
22.
Appendix A. Instance data example #1
Suggest changing:
"the running, and operational datastores" => "the running and operational
datastores".
'"on-change" only' -> '"on-change", only'
'reported "on-change" as they' -> 'reported "on-change", as they'
DONE
23.
========== NOTE: '\' line wrapping per BCP YYY (RFC YYYY) ===========
This can be updated to "NOTE: '\' line wrapping per RFC 8792".
DONE
24.
"only has running, and operational" -> "only has running and operational"
DONE.
25.
false" data from the operational datastore. Statistics are
not reported on-change only two important counters, for these
a smaller dampening period is possible.
Suggest:
false" data from the operational datastore. Statistics are
not reported on-change except for two important counters, where
a small dampening period is mandated.
DONE.
Spelling/grammar warnings (generated by tool):
Potentially incorrect spellings: sheperds, getconfig
Grammar Warnings:
Section: 1, draft text:
Servers and/or a publishers often have capabilities, values describing
operational behavior, that need to be conveyed to clients, which is enabled by
the YANG modules described in this document.
Warning: The plural noun "publishers" cannot be used with the article "a". Did
you mean a publisher or publishers?
Suggested change: "a publisher"
DONE
Section: 1, draft text:
It is a goal of this document to provide a common way of representing such
capabilities in a format that is:
- vendor independent
- machine readable
- available in identical format both at implementation-time and run-time
Warning: This word is normally spelled with hyphen.
Suggested change: "machine-readable"
DONE
Section: 1, draft text:
It is a goal of this document to provide a common way of representing such
capabilities in a format that is:
- vendor independent
- machine readable
- available in identical format both at implementation-time and run-time
Warning: Please add a punctuation mark at the end of paragraph.
Suggested change: "run-time."
DONE
Section: 1, draft text:
Moreover the decision to buy the node type sometimes depends on these
management possibilities.
Warning: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggested change: "Moreover,"
DONE.
Section: 1.1, draft text:
"Implementation-time information": Information about the server's behavior
that is made available during the implementation of the server, available from a source
other then a running server.
Warning: Did you mean other than?
Suggested change: "other than"
DONE.
Section: 3, draft text:
These include:
- Supported (reporting) periods for "periodic" subscriptions
- Maximum number of objects that can be sent in an update
- The set of datastores or data nodes for which "periodic" notification is
supported
Warning: Please add a punctuation mark at the end of paragraph.
Suggested change: "supported."
DONE
Section: 7.2, draft text:
Following the format in [RFC7950], the the following registrations are
requested:
Warning: Maybe you need to remove one determiner so that only the or the is
left.
Suggested change: "the"
DONE
Section: Appendix C, draft text:
In this latter case it is really the server functionality that is discussed
Warning: Please add a punctuation mark at the end of paragraph.
Suggested change: "discussed."
DONE
Thanks,
Rob
.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
