Subject: RE: quick check of notification-11

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:13:30 +0100

Tom, as netconf-noticiation document shepherd, I am checking
all (possibly still) outsanding comments. I think that the
one from you (below) is still unanswered.

My comments questions inline

Bert Wijnen 

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [email-masked]
> [mailto:[email-masked]]Namens tom.petch
> Verzonden: maandag 17 december 2007 16:18
> Aan: Andy Bierman; Netconf (E-mail)
> Onderwerp: Re: quick check of notification-11
> 
> 
> A minor quirk - I see a missing solidus in 3.2.5.1
> "<netconf xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netmod:notification">
>            <streams/>
>          <netconf>
> "
> 

I think you mean that the last <netconf> tag should be a 
closing tag: </netconf>?
So the above 3 lines should read:

 "<netconf xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netmod:notification">
            <streams/>
          </netconf>

right?

> and an uncertainty - the I-D does not register the XML Schema defined in
> sections 4 and 3.4, just their targetNamespace; is this intentional?
> 

Not sure yet. I need to check.
Andy (or netconf-monitoring authors, can you pls comment?

> Also in IANA considerations, it might be clearer if the 
> registration of the capability urn refers to the named registry
> created by RFC4741 s.10.3; obvious to those up to their ears in
> netconf, perhaps less so to those with an IANA-wide remit.
> 

I think you are ricght. Re-reading the IANA considerations in this
draft and also in RFC4741, maybe that section should be rewritten as:

8.  IANA Considerations

8.1  NETCONF XML Namespace

   This document registers a URI for the NETCONF XML namespace 
   [RFC4741, section 10.1) in the IETF XML registry [RFC3688].

   Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA has made the following
   registration:

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0

   Registrant Contact: The IESG.

   XML: N/A, the requested URI is an XML namespace.

8.2  ??

8.3  NETCONF Capability URNs

   This document registers URNs for the the following NETCONF
   capabilities in the netconf registry (RFC4741], sect 10.3):

   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | Index              | Capability Identifier                        |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+
   | :notification      | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:          |
   |                    | notification:1.0                             |
   |                    | running:1.0                                  |
   |                    |                                              |
   | :interleave        | urn:ietf:params:netconf:capability:          |
   |                    | interleave:1.0                               |
   +--------------------+----------------------------------------------+

I am not sure (yet) where to put the following.
Is that part of the NETCONF XML namespace (i.e. should it 
go in sect 8.1 above?):

   URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netmod:notification

Anyway, Tom, is this the direction you were looking for?

Any comments from authors or WG participants?

Bert
> Tom Petch

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:26:05 +0100

Bert

Yes, I agree, I think these are unresolved and that your suggestions are good.
I would be inclined to say

"Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA is requested to make the following
registration "

rather than

"Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA has made the following  registration"

thinking that the former is politer - but then IANA my prefer to have the words
put in their mouth:-) (I will ask them one day).

netmod is the to-be-created Netconf data model, much discussed in 2004/5; you
will find that the URI for it was issue 7 in the tracker in July 2007.  I think
it should be kept quite distinct from the other netconf URI until and when it
takes a more concrete form.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
To: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>; "Netconf (E-mail)"
<[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:13 PM
Subject: RE: quick check of notification-11

---

From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:56:00 +0100

Ok, thanks Tom.

W.r.t.
> thinking that the former is politer - but then IANA my prefer to

Yep, that is my feeling too. But since the text has gone out in IETF LC
in that (unpolite) style, I did not want to change that. In the end, this
is the text that should end up in the RFC. Maybe a good compromise would be

   -- Editor note to IANA/RFC-Editor: we request that you make these
   --     assignments, in shich case it is top be documented as below

   "Following the format in RFC 3688, IANA has made the following
    registration"

Oh well.

Bert Wijnen

> Van: tom.petch [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Verzonden: vrijdag 25 januari 2008 10:26
> Aan: Bert Wijnen; Netconf (E-mail)