Re: [netconf] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-22: (with COMMENT)

["Scharf, Michael" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Paul,

Thanks for your comment. See below for a follow-up question.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 9:18 PM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-22:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-22: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-
> ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Similar to the ssh-server that defines keep-alives, I feel that if one believes
> keepalives are defined at this layer, that same layer should also define
> idle-timeout for a server.

Sorry, I am not sure if I understand this comment. Can you please expand?

At least when I checked last time, major TCP stacks had no such configuration parameter for the TCP stack. IMHO a YANG data model should not define a parameter that is not supported by running code.

Michael