Subject: [Netconf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-17: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 12:00:32 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-17: 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-netconf-restconf/

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

(I would have balloted DISCUSS based on the major comment, but Alexey
beat me to it:)

Major:
- 4.6:  The first patch says the sever MUST support PATCH, and also that
implementation of PATCH is optional. Language in 4.1 seems to assume the
latter.

Minor:

- 2.5: I'm a bit surprised to see basic authentication encouraged to the
same degree as other options.

- 5.2:  Did the working group consider the interoperability impact of not
making either encoding MTI?

- 12, paragraph 4: Please consider not repeating the 2119 language from
other sections.

Editorial/Nits:

-1.4, 6th paragraph: "...then this commit will act as the
   confirming commit": Which commit is "this" commit?

- 5.3, first sentence: Missing word?

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 19:15:47 +0000

Hi Ben, Alexey,

the major point below has been also provided by Spencer as a comment.

The authors see it as a bug and agreed to resolve the contradiction in favor of the MUST in sec. 4.6 PATCH and correct sec. 4.1.

Mehmet 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 9:01 PM
To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]
Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-17: (with COMMENT)

Major:

Minor:

Editorial/Nits:

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:45:31 -0500

On 12 Oct 2016, at 14:15, Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) wrote:

> The authors see it as a bug and agreed to resolve the contradiction in 
> favor of the MUST in sec. 4.6 PATCH and correct sec. 4.1.

Thanks, that would resolve my concern on those sections.

Ben.

> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; 
> Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) <[email-masked]>; 
> [email-masked]
> Subject: Ben Campbell's No Objection on 
> draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-17: (with COMMENT)
>
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html