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 Routing Area Directorate (rtgdir)
Deadline 2019-04-12
Requested 2019-03-22
Requested by Alvaro Retana
Authors Eric Voit, Alexander Clemm, Alberto Prieto, Einar Nilsen-Nygaard, Ambika Tripathy
Draft last updated 2019-04-16
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)
Interested in the potential impact (good/bad) as related to the routing models.
Assignment Reviewer Ravi Singh 
State Completed
Review review-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-23-rtgdir-lc-singh-2019-04-16
Reviewed rev. 23 (document currently at 26)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2019-04-16



I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see ​

Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft.

Document: draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications
Reviewer: Ravi Singh
Review Date: 04/12/2019
IETF LC End Date: date-if-known
Intended Status: Standards Track

This document is basically ready for publication, but has nits that should be considered prior to publication.

I've reviewed the draft.
It is very exhaustive and generally well written.
I consider it ready for publication, after the following "nits" have been addressed.

1.       1.3:
"Support for configured subscriptions is optional, with its availability advertised via a  YANG feature."
The "how" aspect should be alluded to here, even though subsequent sections address this in detail?
This will make for better readability.

2.       "For connectionless or stateless transports like
      HTTP, a lack of receipt acknowledgment of a sequential set of
      notification messages and/or keep-alives can be used to trigger a
      termination of a dynamic subscription."
How long to wait? Any inputs the draft would like to provide or leave to an implementation?

3.       Section 2.4.2:
Would be useful to explain "when replay stops", if "replay" was requested.
Is this done by mandating that "stop-time" must be provided if replay was requested?
Subsequent sections address this, however would be useful to allude to in this section…

4.       Section 2.4.3:
Please elaborate on the presence of the following in the schema:
             +---w stop-time?

5.        Section 2.4.5: not clear when this would actually get used, IOW…what would cause there to be such a situation where the kill-sbuscription notifcation would need to be used. When will a subscription not be associated with a transport session?

6.       2.4.6:
a.       why have errors w.r.t. "weighting", and "dependency" not been included?
b.      Numered points 1/2/3 are better communicated via a table to avoid the duplicated text.
Brevity makes for better reading.

7.       Sections 2.5.2 - 2.5.7: these are a bit of a drag to read through, in an already large document. Readability for these sections would be greatly improved if the notifications that get sent out were listed pictorially or in a tabular fashion by enhancing the simple FSMs listed in section 2.5.1.

8.       Section 5.4:
"This can be accomplish by establishing" -> "This can be accomplished by establishing"