[Netconf] FW: NETCONF WG Session Summary

"Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com> Fri, 30 March 2012 08:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
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 0A45C21F8887 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:32:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.037, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Iq+fAWmv2YAh for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:32:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1898E21F8883 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q2U8Wc4Y012866 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:32:38 +0200
Received: from DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.94]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id q2U8WU3C011964 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:32:38 +0200
Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:32:17 +0200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 10:32:16 +0200
Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640398E384@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
thread-topic: NETCONF WG Session Summary
thread-index: Ac0OTGOAZ1FdgMfZQBWmxHO507FChwAAjGyA
From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
To: netconf@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 30 Mar 2012 08:32:17.0283 (UTC) FILETIME=[9D986D30:01CD0E4F]
X-purgate-type: clean
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information)
X-purgate-size: 2822
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1333096359-00007415-42251D10/0-0/0-0
Subject: [Netconf] FW: NETCONF WG Session Summary
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:32:43 -0000

Dear NETCONF WG,

please find below the summary of the NETCONF session in Paris.

The co-chairs would like to encourage the WG to debate on the issue for
NETCONF-Light discussed during the session as noted below.
Please discuss the pros and cons for a "netconf light with no need to
support any capabilities" vs. a "must document deviations" approach.

Mehmet & Bert


_____________________________________________
From: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) 
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2012 10:09 AM
To: ext Benoit Claise
Cc: 'ext Bert Wijnen (IETF)'; 'ext Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'
Subject: NETCONF WG Session Summary


Hi Benoit, 

below is a summary from the NETCONF WG session on March 27, 2012 in
Paris, France: 

- We had approx. 32 participants in the 1 hour NETCONF session. 
- We reviewed the status of the WG. All chartered WG items are finished.
- We went through the non-chartered documents and had a good discussion
and review of the documents.

Status of the documents:

Both chartered items, NETCONF Access Control Model and NETCONF System
Notifications documents have been published as RFC.

Non-chartered items:

Update of NETCONF over TLS (5539bis):

Badra presented remaining issues which he is going to address with a new
I-D. The sense in the room was in favor of the draft and it will become
WG item after the approval on the maillist.

NETCONF over Web Sockets:

Tomoyuki Iijima explained the changes to address the username handling
as required in the updated NETCONF base protocol document. There is a
security issue in the draft because of the independent handling of the
two security layers for TLS and the authentication based on cookies. It
has been recommended to address the issue and submit a new draft.

NETCONF-Light:

Juergen Schoenwaelder described the updated document, which defines only
the hello message as mandatory. Andy Bierman questioned the strategy to
provide a solution which is competing with the current NETCONF protocol
standard, where deviations can be used to reduce the standard features
for an implementation. The WG was in favor of the draft however the
issue needs to be solved and needs a discussion on the maillist as one
of the key contributors of the draft was not present. NETCONF-Light
makes use of the TLS Pre-Shared Key (PSK) authentication introduced in
the update of NETCONF over TLS.

AOB:

Juergen reported from the discussion on the REST API on Monday morning.
The discussion was useful to understand the details. However, it has
been proposed, for the time being, not to plan the REST API as 
a chartered document.

Action item:
The co-chairs will provide a charter update for approval including the
update of NETCONF over TLS and 
NETCONF-Light documents.

Bert & Mehmet