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

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

>>>> Noteworthily, the HTTP experts additionally said that they would have no issue if the module were called something else (ietf-restful-http-client/server?) as then it wouldn't appear to intending to be an all-encompassing HTTP definition and it would no longer require involvement of the HTTP experts to ensure correctness.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Changing the module name to ietf-restful-http-client/server makes any
>>> reuse of the definitions look back.
>> 
>> Can you clarify what you mean by "look back"?
>> 
> 
> The name just looks odd: Do I want to import something that is labeled
> as a restconf specific grouping? The HTTP people do not want us to
> define something that may look generic but do we want to define
> something that looks like a solution just for restconf? Well, perhaps
> we should just put the -restconf- thing in the name and future will
> tell us whether people reuse this or attempt to roll their own.

I see, but note that I wrote "restfull" (not "restconf"), which is important since the "https-notif" draft is NOT using RESTCONF (just HTTP).

That said, I don't see why we shouldn't proceed with "http", as that is what the protocol layer is called.   At one point the HTTP chairs said that, if we wanted to use "http", then we should involve the httpbis WG, which makes sense, but shouldn't (in my mind) block an adoption.   I suggest that we take the draft to the httpbis list and (maybe) present it in the httpbis session.  

A couple days ago I looked for the httpbis list, but couldn't find it.  Their agenda [1] looks packed, so probably too late for a new request, but if the HTTP chairs are reading this and think we could squeeze in a quick preso, that would be great, otherwise, pointers to the httpbis list would be appreciated.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-httpbis-01.html <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-httpbis-01.html>

Kent