Subject: [Netconf] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-12: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 11:03:51 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-netconf-yang-patch-12: 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-yang-patch/

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

Update: I've cleared my discuss bases on the authors' intent to clarify
that yang-patch is intended to be atomic regardless of the underlying
protocol.

-2, 2nd paragraph, last sentence: is the message body mentioned in the
last sentence the same as the one described by the media type in the
previous sentence? That is, are we talking about one body part, or two?
If one, the ordering of the 2nd and 3rd sentence is a bit confusing to
me.

-2.2, tree diagram:
If edit-id is optional, how are errors identified if it is not present?

-2.6, first paragraph: "...RESTCONF server SHOULD return a
"yang-patch-status" message."

What if it doesn't? (I.e. Why not MUST?)

-2.7, 2nd paragraph: "... SHOULD return a "yang-patch-status" message."

What if it doesn't?

Editorial:
-2, first bullet: s/at within/within

-2, Accept-Patch example: The example seems misplaced, as it seems to
apply to the text two paragraphs back, not the immediately proceeding
paragraph.