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

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 18:50:16 -0700

Benjamin Kaduk 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The RFC 8040 security considerations are probably adequate for the new datastores.

I noticed the same issue with "identity" that Adam did, though my tentative conclusion
was that these are the more generic "identifier".

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 10:05:27 +0200 (CEST)

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

See my reply to Adam's email; I have clarified that we mean
"identityref", and updated the reference.

/martin