Re: [Netconf] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06

Christer Holmberg <> Tue, 31 July 2018 14:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F51B130E8C for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:27:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.41
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.41 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 044h5S3UzkAK for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:27:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61711130F09 for <>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 07:27:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256;; s=mailgw201801; c=relaxed/simple; q=dns/txt;; t=1533047256; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:CC:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id: List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=EFB6V9S2qOdYFyQ53NWZgdUePch5aXWOBVRJTaro49k=; b=OnKZN1l5y8dpMTaBJzOlenbzFDNmbivfyqYeiQeQlW4WUAdyp4woeg9Epoesv1xl y/ZccUk3Kyt27dCLehRXoS0omlj0FM6MvH+G86tp0l/erX6ZMvup4dSlkoHriACm Y+lNB/PedBpi8ciovIIJ7K51aSo2M8gwpO6Z4qm8aDg=;
X-AuditID: c1b4fb2d-223ff700000055ff-83-5b6071d836e2
Received: from (Unknown_Domain []) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id EB.B3.22015.8D1706B5; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:27:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1466.3; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:27:36 +0200
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.1466.003; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 16:27:36 +0200
From: Christer Holmberg <>
To: "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06
Thread-Index: AdQo2g8aZ5xHtRRFQ+GlpKdy7srUWA==
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:27:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_16f7bca5d58b4d69a3e1618b8ba9dbf5ericssoncom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Brightmail-Tracker: H4sIAAAAAAAAA+NgFprEIsWRmVeSWpSXmKPExsUyM2J7ke6NwoRog9lT5C1aW68wW1x99ZnF 4tnG+SwWVzf+ZLSYuuk2qwOrx5IlP5k8NhzwDGCK4rJJSc3JLEst0rdL4Mp4u8i5YEpoxfZ7 rawNjE+9uxg5OSQETCQuTTjH3sXIxSEkcJRRYuPuP0wgCSGBb4wSXc15EPYyRoknraJdjBwc bAIWEt3/tEHCIgLBEnP+fGUGsZkFrjFKTF+oCGILC4RJdOzbywpREy2xb/oZKFtPYv3CZWDj WQRUJQ73nQWzeQWsJdqWXmUHsRkFxCS+n1rDBDFTXOLWk/lMEHcKSCzZc54ZwhaVePn4HyuE rSSx99h1FpDTmAWSJdZcTIcYKShxcuYTlgmMwrOQTJqFUDULSRVEiY7Egt2f2CBsbYllC18z w9hnDjxmQhZfwMi+ilG0OLW4ODfdyFgvtSgzubg4P08vL7VkEyMwpg5u+a27g3H1a8dDjAIc jEo8vE7JCdFCrIllxZW5hxglOJiVRHhtZOKjhXhTEiurUovy44tKc1KLDzFKc7AoifPqrdoT JSSQnliSmp2aWpBaBJNl4uCUamD0Xe5T5VagIt9UzV8y88NjB8uFJg0SnQfTw/5fTJEJr1Ce YqL8PeLIE8PFPqvurXzF25TznXWq9D7eH9Ncr91VOx82a8X+1Z73/i87uOiN7ZHkStdOC8/t Bcwa7/zuvdlYuTT3vlXfndzDBrs+Zb96q6fwa7vfFeFTiRofY7n/elxc8JFH3+a9EktxRqKh FnNRcSIACV0m9aUCAAA=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-nmda-netconf-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 14:27:46 -0000

Hi Juergen,

It seems like I missed your reply earlier. Sorry for that. See inline.

>> Minor issues:
>> Sometimes, when a draft updates an existing RFC, people ask whether
>> implementations not implementing the draft are still compliant with the updated
>> RFC. Based on discussions, the consensus seems to be that existing
>> implementations are still compliant, and if one wants to mandate the new
>> features a bis is needed. I would just like to confirm whether that applies
>> also to this draft. If so, perhaps a note indicating that would be useful, in
>> order to avoid discussions in future?
> An existing NETCONF server not implementing NMDA is still compliant to
> the RFC 6241. However, a NETCONF server implementing NMDA (RFC 8342)
> has to implement this update to RFC 6241. Do you want to have this
> stated more explicitly? (We will have the same for RESTCONF and the
> NMDA update of RESTCONF.)

I think it would be useful.

>> Related to that, it would also be good to have an interoperability
>> statement, saying that implementations that implement the draft will
>> still work with implementations that do not.
> This primarily concerns clients: They need to be able to fallback to
> using <edit-config> instead of <edit-data> and <get> instead of
> <get-data> if they communicate with a non NMDA NETCONF server. I am
> not sure whether this is a "SHOULD be able to fallback" or a "MUST be
> able to fallback".

If you use MUST, you guarantee that fallback will always work (assuming implementations follow the spec). If you use SHOULD, I think you'll need some additional discussion on when it doesn't apply, what to do then, etc.

So, my suggestion (from a reviewer perspective) would be MUST.