Subject: Re: [Netconf] Last Call on yang-push-17

From: "Banghart, Stephen A. (Fed)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2018 17:06:11 +0000

All,

I've completed a review of the top level YANG Push draft. I only had a few minor comments (below) as I reviewed, and I think that the document is ready to progress.

Regards,
Stephen Banghart

Sections 1-3: Periodic Subscriptions
I'd like to see some discussion on how periodic subscription differs from polling, or at least how periodic subscription solves (or doesn't solve) the issues of polling solutions. As a reader, I found myself noting that polling is client requested, and periodic subscriptions are server triggered, but beyond that I don't understand the important differences. This line in the Introduction:

A more effective alternative to polling is for an application to
   receive automatic and continuous updates from a targeted subset of a
   datastore.

seems to exclude the time interval periodic case. A sentence in the introduction, or perhaps in the glossary, could address this.

Section 2: BCP 14 boilerplate

A personal nit for me, I noticed the draft contains both upper and lower case MUSTs, SHOULDs, etc. A reference out to BCP 14 would clarify the intent behind these words.

Section 5: YANG Module

Would it be possible to move this module declaration to an Appendix? It's placement in the body of the document pushes IANA and Security Considerations to an obscure place in the document.