Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04

["Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Kent,

I broadly agree with Martin here, in that I think that we want to get all of the "Client-Server" drafts finished.

Defining groupings in one place is probably beneficial and I as such as support the adoption of this draft, but not if it going to cause the other drafts that depend on these modules to end up being blocked for another 8 months, or a year.

Can we quickly find a name for these modules that is good enough for us, and would also be acceptable to the httpbis WG?

Perhaps "http-rest" instead of "http" or "restful"?

Thanks,
Rob


From: netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: 08 November 2019 01:45
To: Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04

Hi Martin,

I think it is quite clear that the WG doesn't want more delays.

Is it?   I only know that Balazs K. wishes to have the first three drafts (crypto-types, truststore, and keystore) completed soon.  The Nokia/BBF folks were interested in netconf-server, but forked long ago.  Otherwise, I'm unaware of anyone stating a preference.   For myself, I only hope to achieve a good result.



So I think that either we simply don't add this grouping *at this point*,
and define the necessary nodes in the higher-level modules, even
though it is not perfect; or we define the "restful" module with these
groupings, even though that is also perhaps not perfect.

ietf-restful-client and ietf-restful-server sound nice, but not so much in a stack:

    tcp-server-parameters : { ... },
    tls-server-parameters : { ... },
    restful-server-parameters : { .... },        <---- end-user says "what's that?"
    restconf-server-parameters : { ... }

or (for https-notif)

    tcp-client-parameters : { ... },
    tls-client-parameters : { ... },
    restful-client-parameters : { .... }    <---- end-user says "what's that?"


Actually, the above is purposely inaccurate.   If you recall, we switched to having container-less groupings, thus the consuming module can name the container whatever it wants, so the net-net is no impact other than changing the import and uses statements.   Though I still don't know why we should do even this, given the lack of any response to my Oct 30th message.


Kent // contributor