Subject: [Netconf] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Adam Roach <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 18:25:45 -0700

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to everyone who worked on this mechanism.

I agree with Alexey's general point that implementors could benefit from
guidance regarding the "with-defaults" values, as the current mechanism
requires a potentially cumbersome process of probing for support of
desired functionality.

Beyond that, I have only a handful of minor comments.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§3.1:

>  The <datastore> path component is encoded as an "identity" according
>  to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 4 of
>  [RFC7951].

I don't find anything in section 4 of RFC 7951 that indicates encoding for an
"identity." Should this text say "identityref" instead? And if that's the
intention, it seems that pointing to section 6.8 would be more direct than
pointing to section 4.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

§5:

>  This documents extends the RESTCONF protocol by introducing new
>  datastore resources.  The lowest RESTCONF layer is HTTPS, and the
>  mandatory-to-implement secure transport is TLS [RFC5246].

Unless this mechanism relies on some behavior that is different between TLS 1.2
and TLS 1.3, please update this reference to RFC 8446.

Nit: "This document extends..."
                   ^

>  The security constraints for the base RESTCONF protocol (see
>  Section 12 of [RFC8040] apply to the new RESTCONF datastore resources
>  defined in this document.

Nit: Missing a closing parenthesis.

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:04:26 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-restconf/

I will reply to Alexey's email.

> Beyond that, I have only a handful of minor comments.

Yes.  I suggest changing the reference and adding a clarification:

OLD:

   The <datastore> path component is encoded as an "identity" according
   to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in Section 4 of
   [RFC7951].  Such an identity MUST be derived from the "datastore"
   identity defined in the "ietf-datastores" YANG module [RFC8342].

NEW:

   The <datastore> path component is encoded as an "identityref"
   according to the JSON encoding rules for identities, defined in
   Section 6.8 of [RFC7951].  The namespace-qualified form MUST be used.
   Such an identity MUST be derived from the "datastore" identity
   defined in the "ietf-datastores" YANG module [RFC8342].

Ok.  This update needs to go into the security-considerations-template
that is used for documents with YANG modules.

> Nit: "This document extends..."

Fixed.

> Nit: Missing a closing parenthesis.

Fixed.

Thanks for the review!

/martin