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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 14 November 2019 12:04 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 C328C120142; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:04:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 qY0CH-zCNV4v; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53645120128; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 04:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 480AE1AE0312; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:03:59 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 13:03:28 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20191114.130328.235293728895543729.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kent+ietf@watsen.net
Cc: bill.wu@huawei.com, ietfc@btconnect.com, rwilton@cisco.com, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100016e69b1f262-27a7a4b7-4e6e-4553-9bc5-c76bb7739cee-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <0100016e68049a12-bcb2acea-a4e2-42f9-8eab-05bab261d5dd-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20191114.101406.2087098792700938588.mbj@tail-f.com> <0100016e69b1f262-27a7a4b7-4e6e-4553-9bc5-c76bb7739cee-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/HqAr0B-DALkPXuBsTkdB2kdB8F8>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04
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: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 12:04:03 -0000

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>; wrote:
> 
> > There's a thread in opsawg about renaming drafts...  Conclusion (I
> > think): keep the name of the draft, but change the title and name of
> > the module.
> 
> I saw but didn't read the thread.  Did it cover crossing from an
> individual draft to a WG draft (i.e., kwatsen-05 --> ietf-00)?

Yes.

> The
> draft name must change, right?  If this is a Datatracker history
> issue, is it understood that the replace-by behavior enables diffs to
> cross the individual to WG draft boundary, and it really doesn't
> matter what names are used?

Personally I don't care; just pointing out a discussion that may be
relevant.


> > If the name is too generic, and the issue is that the content is more
> > specific than the name suggests, then renaming can help resolving the
> > issue.
> 
> In principle, yes, but for this case, how is the "http" name too
> generic?

I think it is the name "ietf-http-server" that seems to indicate that
this a module that can be used to configure any HTTP server.  (See
below!)


> Do we have a single concrete reason that has been vetted?
> How can the draft explain to readers why the most obvious name wasn't
> used?  What is the distinguishing characteristic that potential
> consumers should use to ascertain if the modules are [in]appropriate
> for them?
> 
> As for the title and module name, it seems the simplest thing is:
> 
> 	OLD:
> 		title: 	Groupings for HTTP Clients and Servers
> 		module: 	ietf-http-client
> 		module: 	ietf-http-server
> 
> 	NEW:
> 		title: 	Groupings for RESTful HTTP Clients and Servers
> 		module: 	ietf-restful-http-client
> 		module: 	ietf-restful-http-server
> 
> But isn't there also an issue of names being overly specific?  Some
> may ask why the draft is limited to RESTful HTTP, being that it only
> configures endpoints and has nothing to do with if the application is
> RESTful or not.

I wonder if the names should be "ietf-http-server-groupings" instead?
(and same for tcp / ssh / tls, but not netconf / restconf).  We
already have some "-types" modules.  Or even "ietf-http-server-types",
if by "type" we mean "typedef and/or grouping".

This could also be a way to make the name less problematic.  It makes
it more obvious that these modules provide building blocks, rather
than a complete solution.


/martin