IETF Logo Mail Archive

[Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)

badra@isima.fr Wed, 08 October 2008 18:53 UTC

Return-Path: <netconf-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: netconf-archive@ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-netconf-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32553A68C6; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3FE43A68C6 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.943
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.943 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.183, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id A7aOaxs35TKM for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sp.isima.fr (sp.isima.fr [193.55.95.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E78023A6801 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 11:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from www.isima.fr (www-data@www.isima.fr [193.55.95.79]) by sp.isima.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m98JsDWh151766 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:54:15 +0100
Received: from 88.164.98.77 (SquirrelMail authenticated user badra) by www.isima.fr with HTTP; Wed, 8 Oct 2008 20:52:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <62919.88.164.98.77.1223491959.squirrel@www.isima.fr>
In-Reply-To: <56653.88.164.98.77.1222885530.squirrel@www.isima.fr>
References: <50947.88.164.98.77.1222460713.squirrel@www.isima.fr><00bb01c92265$a9c7ba90$0600a8c0@china.huawei.com> <61043.88.164.98.77.1222722436.squirrel@www.isima.fr> <001301c9230c$7ed77940$0601a8c0@allison> <54288.88.164.98.77.1222791769.squirrel@www.isima.fr> <000c01c923aa$054cc6e0$0601a8c0@allison> <55201.88.164.98.77.1222865792.squirrel@www.isima.fr> <001901c923e5$9b2d73e0$0601a8c0@allison> <56653.88.164.98.77.1222885530.squirrel@www.isima.fr>
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:52:39 +0200
From: badra@isima.fr
To: netconf@ietf.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (sp.isima.fr [193.55.95.1]); Wed, 08 Oct 2008 20:54:15 +0100 (WEST)
Subject: [Netconf] system or registered port for Netconf over TLS (was WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tls-04.txt)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: netconf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: netconf-bounces@ietf.org

Dear all,

During the syslog WGLC of syslog-tls, there was a discussion about the use
of a registered or a system port for the initial version of syslog over
TLS.  The consensus was that a dedicated port should be requested.

Regarding "Netconf over TLS" document:

On the one hand, some Netconf WG members recommended reviewing the
discussion in the syslog WG to see whether the compliance requirements for
"Netconf over TLS" are consistent with the syslog-tls proposal, which uses
a registered port.

On the other hand, the Netconf WG already assigned system ports for
NetConf over SSH, SOAP and BEEP and the question is why to don't use a
system port for TLS?

The question for the WG to reach a consensus is: do we need a system port
or just a registered port for "Netconf over TLS"?

Please express you preference on the list for one of these two options by
the WGLC deadline.

As a contributor and author, I'd vote for a registered port.
Best regards,
Badra
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email