Subject: [Netconf] Fwd: Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: (with COMMENT)

From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:27:16 +0100

I wonder if we actually need those 2 comment lines on page 93
    // the namespace for NETCONF XML definitions has not changed
    // this value is pre-determined by RFC 4741

And otherwise, is that definition not also in the 4741bis document, so we
can refer to a section in our 4741bis doc?

Bert
Document Shepherd

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Adrian Farrel's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-09: (with COMMENT)
Date: 	Wed, 02 Mar 2011 09:53:57 -0800
From: 	Adrian Farrel <[email-masked]>
To: 	The IESG <[email-masked]>
CC: 	[email-masked], [email-masked]

Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

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

I am entering a No Objection position on the basis of the Yes ballots fromt the Ops ADs.

Appendix C seems to claim that "this value is pre-determined by RFC 4741" but since 4741 is now obsoleted (by this document) you should find some new text.

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 09:31:05 +0100

> can refer to a section in our 4741bis doc?

Comments by definition can be removed, except that you loose
additional explanations. In this case, a reader might wonder why the
namespace is 1.0 and the comment tries to convey (likely in an
imperfect way) that this is not an error but by intention. That said,
I am happy to accept any IESG advice on this. ;-)

/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: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:38:33 +0100

On 3/3/11 9:31 AM, Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:
> I am happy to accept any IESG advice on this.;-)
>
> /js
I can see however, that someone might think that rfc4741 is a normative
reference because the above text is in a normative appendix.
Maybe this might help:?

// so this value is still the same as it was in RFC 4741

Bert