Last Call Review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23

Request Review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 26)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2019-04-12
Requested 2019-03-22
Authors Eric Voit, Alexander Clemm, Alberto Prieto, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard, Ambika Tripathy
Draft last updated 2019-04-05
Completed reviews Yangdoctors Last Call review of -10 by Andy Bierman (diff)
Yangdoctors Last Call review of -21 by Andy Bierman (diff)
Rtgdir Last Call review of -23 by Ravi Singh (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -23 by Chris Lonvick (diff)
Tsvart Last Call review of -23 by Wesley Eddy (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -23 by Carlos Pignataro (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Carlos Pignataro 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23-opsdir-lc-pignataro-2019-04-05
Reviewed rev. 23 (document currently at 26)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-04-05



I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's 
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These 
comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the 
IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews 
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments 
just like any other last call comments. 

Summary: Almost Ready

This is a comprehensive very well written document.

From an operational point of view, as per the ops-dir review, I have no concerns or comments. Might be nice to collect some of the operational points in an Operations Consideration section, particularly given the document structure of Section 5.x, "ZZZ Considerations".

I do have one important question for consideration, which is: what is *really* the relationship of this (+ draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications potentially) with RFC 5277? A Normative reference, this doc has no metadata regarding Updating, Obsoleting, etc. Yet lots of it is indeed a superset of it. 

I recommend the authors+ADs consider whether there is any more formal relationship with RFC 5277 that would require meta-tagging the RFC.


Carlos Pignataro.