Re: [Netconf] WG Last Call Comments ondraft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-03.txt

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
To: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[e-mail]>
Cc: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; "Bert Wijnen (IETF)"
<[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 12:08 AM

Hi Juergen,

>I tend to agree with Tom that 'reverse SSH' is potentially misleading
>or that we should pick a consistent terminology for both the TLS and
>the SSH transports. (I do not see that merging reverse SSH into RFC
>4742 fixes the terminology split we have.)

What terminology change do you propose?  I can only think that adding
the
word "reverse" into 5539-bis would be simpler than removing "reverse"
from
the reverse-ssh draft...

>And to make things a bit more confusing, we use 'inbound' and
>'outbound' in the netconf server configuration data model. ;-)

These are in feature statements only.  For instance:

  feature ssh {
       description
        "A server implements this feature if it supports NETCONF
         over Secure Shell (SSH).";
       reference
        "RFC 6242: Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)";
     }

     feature inbound-ssh {
       description
        "The inbound-ssh feature indicates that the server can
         open a port to listen for incoming client connections.";
     }

     feature outbound-ssh {
       description
        "The outbound-ssh feature indicates that the server can
         connect to a client.";
       reference
        "RFC XXXX: Reverse SSH for NETCONF Call Home";
     }

<tp>

Kent

I know, I was leaving that issue for the moment:-)

I think that parts of ssh-server have nothing to do with the server and
apply to the client as well, so that as long as you remember very
clearly that the document title is 'server' then inbound and outbound is
unambiguous (well, as long as you remember that it is the ssh server and
not the tcp server:-)

But as and when parts of ssh-server relate to the client, well then
inbound and outbound are less clear, so I think that the use of inbound
and outbound is an issue that needs more thought.

And inbound is quite widespread in ssh-server, appearing in sections
2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4.  The usage is consistent within
ssh-server but at odds with what I see as a set of documents, 5539-bis,
reverse-ssh, ssh-server
(and, perhaps, system-mgmt).  I read them all before making any comments
and it is the inconsistency between them that is driving me now.

And, as I said before, I do see 5539-bis as the simplest, the clearest
and so the one to move reverse-ssh and ssh-server towards.

Which gives you the work to do, which is why I offered to help.

Tom Petch

Thanks,
Kent