IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Tue, 21 December 2021 23:10 UTC

Return-Path: <0100017ddf42725e-8ad53772-3b60-42bf-8244-74c2301001b9-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 96AF83A1450; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:10:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
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_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
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 gtU5fpy7Qv97; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:10:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-88.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72BAB3A144F; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 15:10:15 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1640128213; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=IaGPz6DnQUHLP5BHMJcQxdUnbZtsZVhCssL+ZnGPUyU=; b=Ft2K63BLF35wn7exMRV3hrVKuv3D7SoDVCEj0f3Ii3Qp9D958P68pXnRrSTt4Znq wp2pkQltLD/m9tuqTqEejOYgZfqJ1Pt9U1tHyMOCoP74LwnLGodCCigV0gCvLomAhBq jiPIHt/pg/G44WYFAtsHlCPBs85sV6OjSAKYujvM=
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <0100017ddf42725e-8ad53772-3b60-42bf-8244-74c2301001b9-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_611776ED-074F-4E95-925A-6BE272A19F3E"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.120.0.1.13\))
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:10:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <40468B1C-773D-46C0-8386-735478F8B04E@ericsson.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: Zaheduzzaman Sarker <zaheduzzaman.sarker@ericsson.com>
References: <163948820661.12873.16286675430659744022@ietfa.amsl.com> <0100017dbb6de6a8-503b8aaa-031f-4c2c-bca4-79eaec0fbff7-000000@email.amazonses.com> <40468B1C-773D-46C0-8386-735478F8B04E@ericsson.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.120.0.1.13)
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.12.21-54.240.8.88
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/DP7-Gf654a6CuetN91R6hicDiLM>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Zaheduzzaman Sarker's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 23:10:22 -0000

Hi Zahed,

>> This comment would have been good when RFC 8040 was being published, but
>> now it is water over the bridge, so to speak.  Agreed?
> Ok I get it. I am now thinking if it is worth mention this fact in the draft. My main point was that RFC7807 is more a generic HTTP way to send details about problem which this specification is using hence might need motivation for why not RFC 7807 is used, specially looking the discussion on this topic in the mailing list. 

As to if it is if it worth mention, I think not.  Again, the encoding used by this draft is solely at the whims of RFC 8040.   It seems that Ben agrees.   I’ll assume this comment is closed, and resulting in no action to update the draft.


>> Good?
> Very good.

Thank you!


> //Zahed

Kent // co-author

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email