Re: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology

["Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" <[e-mail]>]

Sorry, draft-eardley-lmap-framework-02, section 3.2


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Romascanu, Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 12:17 PM
> To: 'Juergen Schoenwaelder'
> Cc: Benoit Claise; [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: [lmap] Feedback on draft-eardley-lmap-terminology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder [mailto:j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-
> > > More unclarity. The single controller (for a given MA) key
> > > assumption
> > is not mentioned by draft-akhter-lmap-framework. Why? The other
> > framework draft draft-eardley-lmap-framework doest take into account
> > the key assumtion, but then talks about the MA pulling configuration
> > from the Controller in order to avoid firewall traversal problems.
> > Does this eliminate a-priori the usage of NETCONF as a possible
> > transport for the Control Protocol?
> > >
> >
> > Perhaps things need to be rephrased but then I am not sure which
> > sentence in draft-eardley-lmap-terminology-02 you think is ruling out
> > NETCONF. The underlying requirement is that sessions need to be
> > initiated by the MAs since they may be behind NATs or other
> middleboxes.
> >
> 
> [[DR]] The phrase I am refering to is not from draft-eardley-lmap-
> terminology-02 but from draft-eardley-lmap-framework-02, section 2. In
> my reading this sentence does not talk about who initiates the session,
> but about the way the configuration itself is to reach the MAs:
> 
> >  To avoid problems with NAT and firewalls, it is likely that the MA
>    'pulls' the configuration from its Controller, as identified by the
>    Initialiser.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Dan