Re: Genart telechat review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-07

[Andy Bierman <andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Stewart,

On Oct 24, 2017, at 11:40 AM, Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@xxxxxxxxx> 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

mjethanandani@xxxxxxxxx

Andy