Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06
review-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2018-07-10-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2018-07-09
Requested 2018-06-25
Authors Martin Björklund, Jürgen Schönwälder, Philip Shafer, Kent Watsen, Robert Wilton
Draft last updated 2018-07-10
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Last Call review of -03 by Ebben Aries (diff)
Rtgdir Telechat review of -06 by Lou Berger (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -06 by Christian Huitema (diff)
Genart Last Call review of -06 by Christer Holmberg (diff)
Opsdir Telechat review of -06 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Christer Holmberg
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2018-07-10
Reviewed rev. 06 (document currently at 08)
Review result Almost Ready
Review completed: 2018-07-10

Review
review-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06-genart-lc-holmberg-2018-07-10

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 treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06
Reviewer: Christer Holmberg
Review Date: 2018-07-10
IETF LC End Date: 2018-07-09
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: The document is well written, and almost ready for publication. However, I have one comment that I would like the authors to address.

Major issues: None

Minor issues:

Sometimes, when a draft updates an existing RFC, people ask whether implementations not implementing the draft are still compliant with the updated RFC. Based on discussions, the consensus seems to be that existing implementations are still compliant, and if one wants to mandate the new features a bis is needed. I would just like to confirm whether that applies also to this draft. If so, perhaps a note indicating that would be useful, in order to avoid discussions in future? Related to that, it would also be good to have an interoperability statement, saying that implementations that implement the draft will still work with implementations that do not.

Nits/editorial comments: None