[netconf] Re: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: netconf 121, draft-netana-netconf-notif-envelope-01, extensions
Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Sun, 15 December 2024 12:25 UTC
Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 2D8DCC15109A; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 04:25:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.906
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.906 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id divwZNXJUDwl; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 04:25:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07ECFC14F69D; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 04:25:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YB2Mg4HmszDCcR; Sun, 15 Dec 2024 13:25:03 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <ec1905e4148045fa85e0e183a2a20835@swisscom.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 13:25:03 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 755958303.01254-9761312f3e169e882fa6204efb54874f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FF01F194-8402-45ED-866E-1CE541B3AE92@tzi.org>
References: <0f820c013cd74961890fd12941a3ba97@swisscom.com> <694DF368-6752-47B5-91BD-C1256CD7E701@tzi.org> <046849c8fd004d0d92e1204adcbc93ab@swisscom.com> <4E9D76CE-A4BD-4EBD-9A4B-050779133B8D@tzi.org> <ec1905e4148045fa85e0e183a2a20835@swisscom.com>
To: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Message-ID-Hash: RLQ7CH3BMDNLD3V64PTMNLOHEB37XVYS
X-Message-ID-Hash: RLQ7CH3BMDNLD3V64PTMNLOHEB37XVYS
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: netconf@ietf.org, nmop@ietf.org, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>, Pierre Francois <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>, maqiufang1=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org, danvoyerwork@gmail.com, Holger.Keller@telekom.de, Ahmed.Elhassany@swisscom.com, Yannick.Buchs@swisscom.com, samuel.gauthier@6wind.com, jeremie.leska@6wind.com, ncorran@cisco.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re: netconf 121, draft-netana-netconf-notif-envelope-01, extensions
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ArgWgm8ecxanA3-KmHhZsu47clY>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>
On 2024-12-15, at 10:28, Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com wrote: > > Instead of "Metadata" to be more specific with "Notification Metadata" and define the term in draft-netana-netconf-notif-envelope-02 as following: > >> Notification Metadata: Additional data describing notification context. Such as from which node, at which time the notification has been published. > > Would that address your remark on terminology? Thank you, this solves the terminology problem. Maybe to get 100 % clarity, add at the end of the definition paragraph: (Unrelated to RFC 7952 YANG Metadata Annotations.) Grüße, Carsten
- [netconf] netconf 121, draft-netana-netconf-notif… Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:… Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:… Carsten Bormann
- [netconf] Re: netconf 121, draft-netana-netconf-n… Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:… Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:… Carsten Bormann
- [netconf] Re: ***CAUTION_Invalid_Signature*** Re:… Andy Bierman