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

Kent Watsen <> Tue, 22 October 2019 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFA2812087B; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:14:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UMQQKylANgNF; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 478AE1207FE; Tue, 22 Oct 2019 11:14:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1571768055; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=KGb7UWT+muARmFCXLeaOhEcrQtSG/VAQUiOpYF9yTgY=; b=kItdbwDithhLUVtlOcrPL33hd11XzW8Zu5Z1HQoACG48bhE1i7XE00HrXGQa3m5m ebjmZqsk9dJqgml9zLsFyJnDucFWNN+H7I0m75wxHKonYXpH7fR+i6x2pi1D0wocsm7 zDJFyR2SWhIJHOPkU6XhS8hhrWaCpO/LzJj8Azew=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C309C98B-D4F6-4A9E-8594-7D88644BE988"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:14:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <>,, "" <>
To: Mark Nottingham <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.10.22-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2019 18:14:19 -0000

Hi Mark,

I just re-read all your (and Patrick's) messages from before and was unable to see anything actionable that wasn't addressed.  Can you please provide concrete examples for the concerns you have?

Since last time, there is now a second consumer of this draft: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif.  Hopefully, now looking at both consumers (the other being draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-client-server) you will get a clearer picture of what is trying to be accomplished here.  

While not stated anywhere, the goal is somewhat restricted to support HTTP-based APIs (e.g., RESTful protocols) more so than webservers or browsers.  Maybe this is what you're perceiving as being "an arbitrary profile"?   FWIW, there are implementations (running code), which suggests the model here is close to what is needed for HTTP-based APIs.

This draft defines only YANG "grouping" statements.  Grouping statements don't define protocol-accessible nodes, just a potential for its nodes to exist.  The grouping statements MUST be "used" by another YANG module, which MAY augment/refine the grouping as needed.  The model is purposely incomplete for this reason.

As an example, assume a higher-level model wishes to define configuration for an HTTP client, but wishes to use some other (potentially proprietary) authentication scheme, not Basic.   To achieve this, the higher-level model could 1) "use" the `ietf-http-client` grouping,  2) NOT define the "basic-auth" feature (and hence Basic is not configurable), while 3) augmenting-in the data model for configuring the client-specific authentication scheme (enabling that authentication model to be configured).

Kent // contributor

> On Oct 21, 2019, at 7:34 PM, Mark Nottingham <> wrote:
> Mahesh,
> I've had a quick look at the draft, and I don't think it substantially addresses the feedback we gave earlier. It appears to create an arbitrary profile of HTTP and embodies several anti-patterns for its use.
> As a result, I personally do not support the adoption of this draft.
> Regards,
>> On 22 Oct 2019, at 9:52 am, Mahesh Jethanandani <> wrote:
>> Hi WG,
>> The author has posted a -04 version of the draft, and believes that it ready for WG adoption.
>> This starts a 2 week poll ending on November 4, to decide whether this document should be made a WG document or not. Please reply to this email whether or not you support adoption of this draft by the WG. Indications that the draft has been read will be also be appreciated.
>> Thanks.
>> Mahesh Jethanandani
> --
> Mark Nottingham
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list