IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Review comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif

Pierre Francois <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr> Wed, 10 November 2021 07:34 UTC

Return-Path: <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B051B3A1348; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 23:34:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01] 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 W5Y91HI4iX-B; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 23:34:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpout02-ext4.partage.renater.fr (smtpout02-ext4.partage.renater.fr [194.254.241.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA5E3A12B5; Tue, 9 Nov 2021 23:33:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr (zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr [194.254.241.61]) by smtpout20.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C303BFCAA; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:33:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7941B140122; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:33:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D032140113; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:33:52 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr
Received: from zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id ALojmoFWkMQB; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:33:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from zstore-b3-033.partage.renater.fr (zstore-b3-033.partage.renater.fr [10.254.241.156]) by zmtaout04.partage.renater.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25DD514010A; Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:33:52 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 08:33:52 +0100
From: Pierre Francois <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Cc: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif <draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <584001588.2945351.1636529632081.JavaMail.zimbra@insa-lyon.fr>
In-Reply-To: <C84A9D67-2E3E-4863-B98B-204128A8A870@gmail.com>
References: <12D5318C-D645-477A-8651-31D4C35C34D4@gmail.com> <4a5c424a36d245b386789b3775cb43de@huawei.com> <1033979831.2157206.1636459882397.JavaMail.zimbra@insa-lyon.fr> <C84A9D67-2E3E-4863-B98B-204128A8A870@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_cafd83d1-71b1-4f35-8fb7-abd11e25ba07"
X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_4059 (ZimbraWebClient - GC94 (Mac)/8.8.15_GA_4059)
Thread-Topic: Review comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif
Thread-Index: IGK+emIstm9as3LkFZjReaBAAaotIg==
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamState: clean
X-Renater-Ptge-SpamScore: -100
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/8h5UvzQMDnEAa9z4viHFUQDTmPU>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Review comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2021 07:34:06 -0000

Mahesh, 

>>> * In Section 3.1, TLS is specified as a transport protocol. I think you mean
>>> TCP or HTTP2 over TCP.
>>> ZTR> This I would like to leave it to Pierre.

>> PFR> I'm afraid I don't understand the comment.

> [mj] TLS is a cryptographic protocol, not a transport protocol.

Haha ok right I'll make sure we are precise there. 

>>> * Section 6.1. Not clear on the statement “Since UDP is an unreliable
>>> transport, with DTLS, an originator or a relay may not realize ..”. What has
>>> DTLS got to do with the unreliability of the transport protocol?
>>> ZTR> This I would like to leave it to Pierre.

>> PFR> What this means is that you don't get to know whether what you produced as
>> an originator
>> got consumed by the receiver, as you would using a connection oriented
>> transport. Actually,
>> it's obvious so we may want to remove this paragraph. The intent was to not have
>> the reader think
>> dtls changes things compared to basic udp transport.

> Ok.

Great. 
Thanks again for the review, 

Cheers, 

Pierre.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email