NETCONF Extensions to Support the Network Management Datastore Architecture
RFC 8526

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

Comment (2018-09-26 for -06)
No email
send info
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).

Martin Vigoureux No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Comment (2018-09-23 for -06)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2018-09-26 for -06)
No email
send info
I agree with the conclusion in the thread about the Gen-ART review that the fact that a NETCONF server implementing NMDA (RFC 8342) has to implement this update to RFC 6241 should be made more clear. I don't think the normative requirements discussed on clients need to be added though.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Mirja K├╝hlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -06)
No email
send info