[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-11.txt
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:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com]
> Verzonden: donderdag 7 februari 2008 23:33
> Aan: General Area Review Team; Sharon Chisholm; Hector Trevino;
> Romascanu, Dan (Dan); netconf-chairs@tools.ietf.org
> 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
>
>
>
--
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/>