Subject: [netconf] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (with COMMENT)

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2021 00:08:58 -0700

Zaheduzzaman Sarker has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: 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/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

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

Thanks for the efforts put into this specification.

I have questions/comment. Section 2 says -

     For the implementation-time use case: Capabilities SHOULD be provided by
     the implementer as YANG instance data files complying to
     [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format]. The file MUST be available
     already at implementation time, retrievable in a way that does not depend
     on a live network node. E.g., download from product website.

How should I interpret this combination of SHOULD and MUST? Is it that if the
implementer provides the capabilities then the file must be available at the
implementation time? if the answer is yes, then it would be good to make it
clear in the text.

---

From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 12:55:58 +0200

Hi,

Thanks for your review.
See inline.

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities/
It's not clear indeed.
What about this proposal to simply reverse the two sentences.

      [I-D.ietf-netmod-yang-instance-file-format]. In such a case, the file MUST be available

Regards, Benoit

> .

---

From: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 11:58:59 +0000

Hello Benoit,

The proposed text looks good to me.

Thanks for addressing my comment.

BR
Zahed
________________________________
From: Benoit Claise <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 12:56 PM
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker; The IESG
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Kent Watsen
Subject: Re: Zaheduzzaman Sarker's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-18: (with COMMENT)

Hi,

Thanks for your review.
See inline.

It's not clear indeed.

Regards, Benoit