Subject: [Netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06: (with COMMENT)

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:52:19 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06: 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-netconf/

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

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).

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:44:31 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

I'm ok with changing this to "should".  The point that we want to make
is that future datastores need to consider if/how "with-defaults" apply
to them.

/martin