IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port

Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com Fri, 20 December 2024 14:50 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.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 C43CDC14F70A; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:50:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=swisscom.com
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 Rbg76LJviMkr; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:50:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.swisscom.com (mailout120.swisscom.com [138.188.166.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6ED19C169407; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:50:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.swisscom.com; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:50:19 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=swisscom.com; s=iscm; t=1734706219; bh=cqUyCVRAwiXdVOL9OHheiHUnGwdCHzY4WDe4w4xM1+4=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=L9JoJFCndgNjaQlpnw5EFv86JoV5o09mmIAn2KmdvyzTbpR8PnfomSc7oSujuibKG wfMWGv/l6znnw3d+HMAKmuw8CmqoJ8z6c/hFtu0LUTOg+ROMtkliiTT5lTnE8TkiDL TH4yggrD/PQUM96s222wRbaRVbVnO3BdEu1MWm0U01zSSnpyN1lON+U6cPiaNBb7cO 9QwyLkB1OzxNHym797lxrEVscKfsN3MQ0L7Uoo8HgoypgA6xozcjd93KI2hSWnbScy cnvloUcwAXT7g1xz55nNNut7UVQ53pcQ8h4PsVsT3efvZl+b0nK9xnGSLyUT2ZaUiY B8ikB5xwwNDcQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="----=_Part_1507949_739875119.1734706219036"
From: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
To: cabo@tzi.org
Thread-Topic: [netconf] [Tsv-art] UDP default port
Thread-Index: AQHbUt+o24tlxMqm/kWOBaq6xAx5pLLvLfGQ///zEICAABOD4A==
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:50:16 +0000
Message-ID: <836d5483b569469f8d8159769d5e3ccf@swisscom.com>
References: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr> <EAEFE72C-2E72-4847-B612-E76617A1C5CC@strayalpha.com> <249963514c32443fb46250e3d7492944@swisscom.com> <1FD4AA1D-0509-45F3-96D4-A2FEE0390B60@strayalpha.com> <F721D255-EFF2-4FCA-812F-9816E25E9949@insa-lyon.fr> <9056d35ba7e24548b36c31bf75a4a6b6@swisscom.com> <98762A51-2207-4193-BB67-8F13CAD9A2C4@strayalpha.com> <b0918cd139444a56bccef2fa233ae828@swisscom.com> <01000193bb4d7eb1-9d40b4a7-3504-4367-b77b-44a5db15d004-000000@email.amazonses.com> <01000193c0e29a1c-9eedbddf-9f9e-4407-80f5-b1a3d776295b-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CH3PR11MB8519A9D21EA690F8F38EC712B53B2@CH3PR11MB8519.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <07E7EB11-2FDE-4CD1-B921-DBC04CA01723@tzi.org> <f6bfd92f77634424936e1440f87d0749@swisscom.com> <9283724F-1912-4036-AE17-8627B9E02402@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <9283724F-1912-4036-AE17-8627B9E02402@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-CH
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ActionId=400af45a-e776-4279-a831-361d36160671;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ContentBits=0;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Enabled=true;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Method=Standard;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Name=C2 Internal;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SetDate=2024-12-20T14:40:36Z;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SiteId=364e5b87-c1c7-420d-9bee-c35d19b557a1;
x-originating-ip: [138.188.161.184]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mailer: Totemo_TrustMail_(Notification)
X-Trustmail: processed
Message-ID-Hash: GSS3XX47CNIIQCB5TFHDXJZHX4HUIERM
X-Message-ID-Hash: GSS3XX47CNIIQCB5TFHDXJZHX4HUIERM
X-MailFrom: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
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: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org, kent+ietf@watsen.net, touch@strayalpha.com, draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org, tsv-art@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/FftY97G-VYE0cc08oq4KyfHGE4g>
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>

Dear Carsten,

Got it. Fair enough. We could update https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#section-4.1 to go from SHOULD/SHOULD NOT to MUST/MUST NOT. That would be more restrictive then what https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8085#section-3.2 defines. Lets see wherever we get more feedback.

The only reason I potentially see where segmentation would not be implemented is in a constraint environment. For network processors, I am not aware of that segmentation can't be performed. Even for SmartSFP's we had a segmentation implementation. I trust on your judgement wherever this should be challenged.

Best wishes
Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 3:31 PM
To: Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>
Cc: rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; kent+ietf@watsen.net; touch@strayalpha.com; draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org; tsv-art@ietf.org; netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Tsv-art] UDP default port


Be aware: This is an external email.



On 20. Dec 2024, at 15:21, <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> wrote:
>
>> E.g., do you really want to run this over IP fragmentation?
>
> No we don't. That’s why segmentation is specified and implemented in all the listed implementations.

My question really was why there is a SHOULD?

If you think this should be a SHOULD, what is the exception that turns the MUST into a SHOULD?

Grüße, Carsten

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status