NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-08
Yes
(Ignas Bagdonas)
No Objection
(Adam Roach)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2018-09-23 for -06)
Unknown
I'll be honest -- I was expecting this review to be long, annoying and unpleasant. It is documenting changes to some fundamental bits, and on matters where I always feel like I *should( have more expertise / knowledge... and so I set aside time on a flight to be able to focus on this.... It turns out to have been a very well, clearly written and understandable document... I only have a *minor* suggestion: "3.1.1.3. Example: Retrieving an entire subtree from <running> The following example shows the <get-data> version of the <get-config> example shown in Section 7.1 of [RFC6241]. " Seeing that this is an introductory example, I think that it would be nice to make it clearer that this filters users subtree; it is clear once reading the example, but knowing what it is supposed to be demonstrating before seeing it might be nice... I did say it was a minor comment!
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-09-26 for -06)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2018-09-26 for -06)
Unknown
Thanks for the well-written document! I only had one comment, namely that Sections 3.1.1.1 and 3.1.2 end with text that certain behavior for non-8342 datastores "SHOULD be defined by the specification for the datastore", and it wasn't entirely clear to me that the 2119 SHOULD was necessary (since it would be attempting to constrain the behavior of future specifications, which is always a bit dicey since they could just update this specification to remove the constraint anyway).
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown