Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04

Kent Watsen <> Thu, 14 November 2019 15:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E9AC120169; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 07:27:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ANQKaUlFD1K5; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 07:26:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A8CD120129; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 07:26:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1573745217; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=Iq33LySoDcAjK1ka18mhYThM+idC8ATMm9A9iXdYcaQ=; b=RGysRfKh6rOGJXTxFasY4sYlymzRSHG7DWkEBgDyFy77COKihK5W28j3CfdJE6j4 LAPc286OlIPgeQ22JvX2636Om9+BNl42ozv3tFdcGqF4L1q3zdhmDHOVrFpaGAZTRQS 1Va8gt9WZ5MobneiMzwDjoIASdqG5LDw/YzRwy2Y=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_832889FF-AD09-4FF7-B003-E38DC3E431C8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:26:57 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.11.14-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 15:27:01 -0000

Hi Rob,

> [RW]
> Do we require consensus from the httpbis WG if we want to use ietf-http-server.yang?

As I understand it, WGs are allowed to standardize anything within their charter without the need to consult other working groups, unless the work falls within the scope of another WG's charter.  Here is the httpbis charter: <>.

> If we do, then how long will that take?  We really want to get these drafts and YANG modules finished (even if they are not perfect).

In my opinion, the very limited scope of the existing http-client-server draft is right-sized and likely applies to *all* HTTP implementations.  I feel that the HTTP-chairs were/are (depending on how much of this thread they're reading) simply unclear with regards to intention.  Had the clear majority of the NETCONF WG said that the existing name was best, then the chairs could've declared "rough consensus" (and pass it to the IESG in the shepherd writeup).

Folks keep thinking that this one draft is going to delay things, but forget that it is not the proverbial long pole in the tent.  One thing that would help things go faster would be to parallelize the effort.  Me driving everything isn't good.  Does somebody want to drive running the http-client-server draft by HTTP experts?  Does anyone know an HTTP-expert that has YANG-clue?

Kent // contributor