Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-11.txt

[Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>]

Hi Sharon,
  Please find comments inline.

Sharon Chisholm wrote:
> hi
>  
> <Suresh>
> > > 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.
> > This results in an error. I think this is implicit with the current 
> > text in section 2.1.1.
> >
> >  "Must be used with and be later than <startTime>." 
> >
> > I'm not sure further clarification is required.
>
> Then why do we have the following error case explicitly listed?
>
> "     If a <stopTime> is requested which is earlier then the specified
>        <startTime>, the following error is returned:
>
>           Tag: bad-element
>
>           Error-type: protocol
>
>           Severity: error
>
>           Error-info: <bad-element>: stopTime
>
>           Description: An element value is not correct; e.g., wrong
> type,
>           out of range, pattern mismatch."
>
> </Suresh>
>
> The text in section 2.1.1 says that stopTime must be later then
> startTime and there is an error message defined later when this isn't
> the case. I'm not sure what the issue is. Can you clarify?

I enquired what would happen if stopTime would be specified without a 
startTime. You mentioned it was implicit in this sentence ""Must be used 
with and be later than <startTime>.". My question is why the other half 
of the sentence "later that <startTime>" explicitly handled as an error 
case while the "must be used with" not explicitly handled.


> <Suresh>
> > > * 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.
> > The term 'Stream' is defined in section 1.1 so I think we are OK.
>
> The following text occurs in Section 3.2
>
> "The central component inspects each event notification and matches
>   the event notification against the set of stream definitions."
>
> At this point I was not aware what a "stream definition" meant and
> how/where it was defined. Personally I would like to push the "Event
> Stream Definition" or a subset of it to Section 1.1 but I do not have a
> strong position on this.
> </Suresh>
>
> My personal view is that since it is defined in the definition section I
> think we are ok.

OK. I am fine with this.

Thanks
Suresh



--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>