Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04
review-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2017-09-11-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04
Requested rev. 04 (document currently at 09)
Type Last Call Review
Team YANG Doctors (yangdoctors)
Deadline 2017-07-31
Requested 2017-07-10
Requested by Mehmet Ersue
Other Reviews Opsdir Last Call review of -04 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -07 by Stewart Bryant (diff)
Review State Completed
Reviewer Radek Krejčí
Review review-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2017-09-11
Posted at https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/yxVcJgtSHxCsTHSqVUI6kauXQSg
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 09)
Review result Ready with Nits
Draft last updated 2017-09-11
Review completed: 2017-09-11

Review
review-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-04-yangdoctors-lc-krejci-2017-09-11

Hi,
I have been assigned to review draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis as YANG Doctor. The document is almost ready to publish, I have just the following few comments:

- section 1.1 Terminology - access control rule: s/protocol operation/access operation/

- "NETCONF transport" is mentioned at several places within the draft and model in connection with information about the user. What about the RESTCONF transport, shouldn't it be also mentioned or (better) shouldn't it be changed to a general transport of the protocols accessing the datastore?

- /nacm/rule-list/rule/rule-type in schema: I would consider to explicitely state into which case the action and notification defined in data subtree belong to. Especially the notification placement can be confusing at the first sight since there is the "notification" case.