Re: [Netconf] WG Last Call Comments ondraft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-03.txt

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

>I tend to agree with Tom that 'reverse SSH' is potentially misleading
>or that we should pick a consistent terminology for both the TLS and
>the SSH transports. (I do not see that merging reverse SSH into RFC
>4742 fixes the terminology split we have.)

What terminology change do you propose?  I can only think that adding the
word "reverse" into 5539-bis would be simpler than removing "reverse" from
the reverse-ssh draft...



>And to make things a bit more confusing, we use 'inbound' and
>'outbound' in the netconf server configuration data model. ;-)

These are in feature statements only.  For instance:

  feature ssh {
       description
        "A server implements this feature if it supports NETCONF
         over Secure Shell (SSH).";
       reference
        "RFC 6242: Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)";
     }

     feature inbound-ssh {
       description
        "The inbound-ssh feature indicates that the server can
         open a port to listen for incoming client connections.";
     }

     feature outbound-ssh {
       description
        "The outbound-ssh feature indicates that the server can
         connect to a client.";
       reference
        "RFC XXXX: Reverse SSH for NETCONF Call Home";
     }





Thanks,
Kent