Hi Quifang, Thanks for taking my comments into account. They are addressed satisfactorily in the -12 revision that I reviewed.
I leave the authors with one nit that they take or leave at their will. On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 9:32 AM maqiufang (A) <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Per, > > Thanks a lot for the review. -07 is posted to address your comments below, > you may want to review the diff at > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-07. > Please also find my response below inline to some of your comments... > > Best Regards, > Qiufang > > -----Original Message----- > From: Per Andersson via Datatracker [mailto:[email protected]] >> Please give an example of how the "with-immutability" query parameter is >> encoded in a RESTCONF URI. I looked for how empty leafs are encoded in a URI >> but couldn't find anything. I assume that your intention is something like >> >> GET /restconf/data/ex-urp:user-groups?with-immutability >> >> is "...?with-immutability=" also ok? > [Qiufang] RESTCONF spec may not explicitly provide the example to carry the > query parameter without a value, but since RESTCONF is based on HTTP, which > allows a query parameter in a URL without a value, using the format such as > ?param. Appendix B.2 gives an example of this. Ok! >> Nits: >> >> s/proscriptive/prescriptive/ > [Qiufang] This is intentional, as the text is to emphasize that immutable > flag serves a descriptive purpose, documenting existing behavior, rather than > imposing restrictions or dictating server behaviors. Proscribe means "to forbid" but prescribe means "to dictate". It seems you mean prescribe? -- Per _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
