[Netconf] AD review for draft-ietf-netconf-partial-lock-08.txt

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <dromasca at avaya.com>]

This document is ready to be sent to IETF Last Call, and I will send it
immediately after sending this message. Please consider the comments
below together with the other IETF Last Call comments.

1. IPR and Copyright issues

Running idnits results in the following warning: 

== The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but was
     first submitted before 10 November 2008.  Should you add the
disclaimer?
     (See the Legal Provisions document at
     http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.). 

     trust-12-feb-2009 Section 6.c.iii text:
     "This document may contain material from IETF Documents or IETF
      Contributions published or made publicly available before November
      10, 2008.  The person(s) controlling the copyright in some of this
      material may not have granted the IETF Trust the right to allow
      modifications of such material outside the IETF Standards Process.

      Without obtaining an adequate license from the person(s)
      controlling the copyright in such materials, this document may not
      be modified outside the IETF Standards Process, and derivative
      works of it may not be created outside the IETF Standards Process,
      except to format it for publication as an RFC or to translate it
      into languages other than English."

Also, the schema in Appendix A will need to include the full text of the
BSD license for code or a reference to it. This issue is still debated
with the Trust, so no action by now on this. 

2. last paragraph in Section 1.1 

s/This consist/These consist/

3. Section 2.1.1

s/However it can be used to lock a candidate datastore/However it can be
used to lock parts of a candidate datastore/

4. The title of Section 2.1.1.1 seems to me to be more appropriately
'Multiple managers handling the writable running datastore with
overlapping sections'

5. same section - I am a little nervous about saying 'The lock should be
held only a short time (seconds rather then minutes)'. What if the lock
can be help less than seconds or minutes at minimum because of the size
of the records to be operated? Maybe better is to say 'The lock should
be held the shortest possible time (e.g. seconds rather then minutes)'.

6. Section 2.1.1.2 - better (e.g. minutes, hours)

7. Section 2.1.1.3 - same comment as #5 for 2.1.1.1

8. page 6 - section 2.4.1 - 'these notes should be included in the
protected area of the lock' - it seems to me that a capitalized SHOULD
is appropriate here. 

9. Capitalization seems necessary also in 2.4.1.2 and also a change as I
do not see in which situations if locking fails the client should not
back-off. I realize this is client behavior, but the normative language
still seems to apply

So: 

OLD: 

   To avoid this situation, clients should lock
   everything they need in one operation.  If locking fails, the client
   should back-off, release any previously acquired locks, and retry the
   procedure after waiting some randomized time interval.

NEW:

   To avoid this situation, clients SHOULD lock
   everything they need in one operation.  If locking fails, the client
   MUST back-off, release any previously acquired locks, and SHOULD
retry the
   procedure after waiting some randomized time interval.

10. Last paragraph in section 3 - why is NOT capitalized? 

Dan