Hello, I have been selected as the Routing Directorate reviewer for this draft. The Routing Directorate seeks to review all routing or routing-related drafts as they pass through IETF last call and IESG review, and sometimes on special request. The purpose of the review is to provide assistance to the Routing ADs. For more information about the Routing Directorate, please see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/area/rtg/trac/wiki/RtgDir Although these comments are primarily for the use of the Routing ADs, it would be helpful if you could consider them along with any other IETF Last Call comments that you receive, and strive to resolve them through discussion or by updating the draft. Document: draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-17 Reviewer: Dhruv Dhody Review Date: 2019-04-29 IETF LC End Date: 2019-04-12 Intended Status: Standards Track Summary: -------- I have some minor concerns about this document that I think should be resolved before publication. Comments: --------- This document provides a binding for events streamed over the NETCONF for dynamic subscriptions. This is a companion document to draft-ietf-netconf- subscribed-notifications and this capability for RESTCONF is defined in draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif. The document is overall well written, it makes an assumption that the reader is well versed in this area and thus sparse in providing details in the Introduction section. The appendix provides good examples. I don't see any Routing Yang model specific issue. Major Issues: ------------- Note - An IETF process issue, but worth handling right away. Section 11 says - 11. Notes to the RFC Editor This section can be removed by the RFC editor after the requests have been performed. It further says - RFC 6241 needs to be updated based on the needs of this draft. RFC-6241 section 1.2 bullet "(2)" targets RFC-5277 (actually it identifies RFC 5717, but that was an error fixed after RFC publication). Anyway the current phrasing in RFC-5277 says that a notification message can only be sent after a successful "create- subscription". Therefore the reference text must be modified to also allow notification messages be sent after a successful "establish- subscription". Proposed text for bullet (2) of RFC-6241 would be: (2) The Messages layer provides a simple, transport-independent framing mechanism for encoding RPCs and notifications. Section 4 documents the RPC messages, [RFC5277] documents Notifications sent as a result of a RPC, and [RFC xxxx] documents Notifications sent as a result of an RPC. (where xxxx is replaced with this RFC number) I am not sure if this is correct. I don't think RFC editor can do the action you are asking them to do on their own. They would need an errata (which is not correct here) or another document that updates RFC 6241. In my view this document should just update RFC 6241 (and mark that in this document's header) and do necessary text changes to reflect that. Minor Issues: ------------- (1) Abstract & Introduction, It is not clear what does the 'binding' mean and who are the parties to this binding? If this is the document that mentions 'binding' first, so please add some more clarifying text. (2) Section 3, since you use MUST in the error handling, isn't it better to use normative in below sentence as well - OLD: However a single NETCONF transport session cannot support both this specification and a subscription established by [RFC5277]'s "create-subscription" RPC. NEW: However a single NETCONF transport session MUST NOT support both this specification and a subscription established by [RFC5277]'s "create-subscription" RPC. (3) Section 6, You have - And per [RFC5277]'s "eventTime" object definition, the "eventTime" MUST be populated with the event occurrence time. Is this a new requirement, or just re-stating RFC5277? RFC5277 says - eventTime The time the event was generated by the event source. This parameter is of type dateTime and compliant to [RFC3339]. Implementations must support time zones. Also contains notification-specific tagged content, if any. With the exception of , the content of the notification is beyond the scope of this document. Maybe remove MUST? If you are trying to refine the text from RFC5277, then please re-word. Nits: ----- (1) Abstract RFC Editor note: please replace the four references to pre-RFC normative drafts with the actual assigned RFC numbers. I see two drafts in the reference section. Why four? Also, since those two are normative references, these would be published as a cluster as a part of normal RFC editor processing right? (2) Regarding NETCONF, the RFC editor says [1] - NETCONF - Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) [Not typically expanded in titles, but expand in abstract] Please expand. (3) s/[I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] /[I-D.ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] Just so that you have the same style of draft reference in the document. I get that it would be replaced with a RFC number anyways :) [1] https://www.rfc-editor.org/materials/abbrev.expansion.txt Thanks! Dhruv