Hello Lada,
Thanks for the comments. See answers below.
Regards Balazs
-----Original Message-----
From: Ladislav Lhotka via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx>
Sent: 2019. október 29., kedd 8:10
To: yang-doctors@xxxxxxxx
Cc: last-call@xxxxxxxx; netconf@xxxxxxxx; draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities.all@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-05
Reviewer: Ladislav Lhotka
Review result: Ready with Nits
***** Section 2. Introduction
- Paragraph 3: the use of MAY is inappropriate: publishers
indeed may have limitations, but this should follow from RFC
8641, and this document should take it as a fact.
BALAZS: OK
***** Section 3. Notification Capability Model
- The use of RFC 2119 terms is again questionable: I understand
the ietf-notification-capabilities data as an optional aid for
the implementors, but requiring that "The file SHALL be
available in implementation time ..." is way too strict.
BALAZS: OK, changed to SHOULD. Other reviewers wanted strong statements.
***** Section 3.2. YANG Module
- This is one of the cases where it would be helpful to know
which of the imported modules, such as ietf-netconf-acm, is
also intended to be implemented. This may be addressed in a
future YANG version (see issue #95 in yang-next), until then I
would suggest to include YANG library data describing a
minimum implementation.
BALAZS: OK. Yes, it would be useful information. I added it as a description substatement to import.
***** Appendix A. Instance data examples
- Example in Fig. 2: the <datastore> element has an incorrect
XML namespace (of the ietf-datastores module).
BALAZS: I don't understand the comment; I don't see the error. Could you please advise me what you think should be there? Exactly where?
- Many enum values are invalid because they contain
leading/trailing whitespace. It would be better to encode the
examples in JSON.
BALAZS: I would like to keep the examples as they are.
In many previous RFCs lines in XML examples were broken into multiple lines. E.g.
RFC7950 7.16.3
rfc8341 A.4
rfc8641 4.4.1
rfc6022 4.1
rfc8525 B
rfc8072 A.1.1
rfc6243 A.3.1
IMHO it is readable. It is better to use longer descriptive names in YANG, then to use short names just to avoid long lines in XML examples.
<<attachment: smime.p7s>>
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
