IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dots] FW: Why is DOTS not using NETCONF/RESTCONF for management functions

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Thu, 17 November 2016 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dots@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A8631293EE for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:39:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zeayekZSvi3T for <dots@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:39:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00::f03c:91ff:feae:de77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECE50129507 for <dots@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Nov 2016 23:39:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (dhcp-8d96.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.141.150]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42B591F8F0 for <dots@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:39:08 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 57DA9F7; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:39:06 +0900 (KST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "dots@ietf.org" <dots@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <17deddbfe2a74204880d3892e819ef5c@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
References: <008f01d23f2b$277490e0$765db2a0$@ndzh.com> <00a801d23f2b$8a283480$9e789d80$@ndzh.com> <fc4c656e55b5405dbdefcafbbc980460@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com> <019601d2405c$94723fd0$bd56bf70$@ndzh.com> <17deddbfe2a74204880d3892e819ef5c@XCH-RCD-017.cisco.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy)" <tireddy@cisco.com> message dated "Thu, 17 Nov 2016 02:44:16 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.6; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 16:39:06 +0900
Message-ID: <2768.1479368346@dooku.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dots/AfhhDdhAPvkGyUumx6SB4Tbyi4g>
Subject: Re: [Dots] FW: Why is DOTS not using NETCONF/RESTCONF for management functions
X-BeenThere: dots@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of DDoS Open Threat Signaling \(DOTS\) technology and directions." <dots.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dots/>
List-Post: <mailto:dots@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dots>, <mailto:dots-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 07:39:11 -0000

Tirumaleswar Reddy (tireddy) <tireddy@cisco.com> wrote:
    > Yes, https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-reddy-dots-signal-channel-04
    > uses COAP over (D)TLS, CBOR encoded payloads, (D)TLS 1.3 and (D)TLS 1.2
    > profile for performance .

So, if your CBOR was derived from a YANG model, you'd be doing exactly NETCONF, btw.
And that activity happens at ID writing time, not runtime.

-- 
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email