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

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 06:06:54 -0700

Stephen Farrell 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

- section 2: I'm not clear what that example of Accept-Patch is
telling me. (And if that's meant to be a figure then a caption
and figure number would be good.)

- 2.2: How do you ensure a patch-id is unique? In what scope?
Random idea: you could specify a way to make these unique if you
hashed a representation of the current resource and the patch
data and the date/resource URI or something. And that might have
nice properties for auditing. Think of "git blame" etc.:-) It
might be possible to do a similar thing for edit-id too I guess.
(Note that I'm only suggesting this as an informative bit of
spec, i.e. as a "here's a good way to do it" kind of thing.)

- section 5: you very reasonably say that a server SHOULD
"prevent system disruption due to excessive resource
consumption" but you don't say how to do that. Is that ok?  At
least some references would help implementers not go so wrong I
think. (Sorry, I don't have such references to hand.)