Hi Rob, > On Aug 7, 2025, at 9:45 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Kent, authors, > > I’ve reviewed the latest version of the document, sorry for the delay.
Thank you for your review! (Three weeks later) I'm likewise delayed ;) That said, Qiufang is still on PTO... > I think that the changes look good, but I wonder whether a bit more > description is needed for the example in the appendix, otherwise, I fear it > may still be slightly confusing. > > (i) It may be worth including a copy of the contents of the system datastore > to make it clear which configuration is present in the system datastore and > hence if deleted from the running datastore will still be present in the > intended datastore. E.g., “The client may also subsequently delete any > copied "user-group" entries or the entire "user-groups" container, but this > will not prevent the configuration as shown in Figure 2 > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-04.html#example> > being present in <intended> (if implemented).” This will surely depend on > whether the power-users group is also in the system datastore. E.g., these > entries may just be in running and hence could just be deleted as normal, and > not appear in intended? This is a good suggestion. > (ii) The example includes a hardcoded admin username/password that cannot be > changed. I’m wondering whether that is really a good example to give in an > IETF document, or at least flag that this is not best practice and is only be > used to illustrate the hierarchical nature of the immutable flag. I think best practice might be to have usernames like "ex-username-1" and "ex-username-2". As for the passwords, I see them as instances of ianach:crypt-hash. That said, I think there is an error in the examples as never should <system> return a password beginning with "$0$" (Andy's password). > (iii) Similarly, the text for B.3, indicates that the tags for the power > users can be removed, but would still turn up in intended. I assume that > this would depend on whether those entries are also in the system datastore? Yes, it would help to clarify that those users are in <system>. > Last minor comment. In section 4.1, it states “4.1., “nor is there any way to > delete the node from the combined configuration (as described in > [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-04.html#I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config>]).” > But the system-config draft doesn’t seem to mention the word combined at > all. Perhaps relate back to the intended datastore (if implemented) and > perhaps update the reference to the specific section where it describes the > merging of configuration along with the diagram in the system datastore > draft. E.g., “nor is there any way to delete the node from the combined > configuration in the intended datastore (as described in > [I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config > <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-netmod-immutable-flag-04.html#I-D.ietf-netmod-system-config>] > section XXX).” Agreed. Terminology matters. > Kind regards, > Rob Kent
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
