Subject: [netmod] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: (with COMMENT)

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2018 19:10:23 -0800

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores-09: 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-netmod-revised-datastores/

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

(1) Please add a sentence to the Introduction explaining how this document
updates rfc7950.  I know that a couple of sections explicitly indicate what
part of rfc7950 they update, but having a short summary at the beginning would
be nice.

(2) Section 3 says: “It is expected that the revised definitions provided in
this section will replace the definitions in [RFC6241] and [RFC7950] when these
documents are revised.”  Why not formally Update those documents here?  [See my
note above about the Update to rfc7950.]

(3) s/Section 4.4 of this document/Section 4.4 of rfc6244

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 18:07:04 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-revised-datastores/

The formal 'update of RFC 7950' is driven by the sections 6.1 and 6.2
and not so much to the terminology section. While we expect that the
terminology wording will be harmonized in a future revision of RFC
7950, this does not seem to require a formal update of RFC 7950 at
this point in time (since the definitions are semantically
equivalent).

So back to the abstract: We could be more explicit by saying:

  This document updates the definition of the XPath context and the
  invocation context of operations in RFC 7950.

Personally, I think this makes the abstract harder to read. Perhaps a
better solution is to leave the abstract as is and to add this one
sentence paragraph to the Introduction (before the key words
boilerplate text).

  This document updates RFC 7950 by refining the definition of the
  accessible tree for some XPath context (see Section 6.1) and the
  invocation context of operations (see Section 6.2).
 
> (3) s/Section 4.4 of this document/Section 4.4 of rfc6244

Yes, this is better.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: Alvaro Retana <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:11:26 -0500

Juergen:

Hi!

WFM.  Thanks!

Alvaro.