Re: [Netconf] WG Adoption Call for draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis WAS:FW: new NACM draft

On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 8:30 AM, Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> we assume now the WG support for the adoption of
> draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis.
> Authors please submit as draft-ietf-netconf-rfc6536bis-00. Thanks.
>
>
done

> Mehmet & Mahesh
>

Andy

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mehmet Ersue
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 10:20 PM
> To: 'Netconf' <netconf@ietf.org>
> Subject: [Netconf] WG Adoption Call for draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis
> WAS:FW: new NACM draft
>
> Dear NETCONF WG,
>
> for the potential topics to add we only got comments from Martin. We assume
> now there are no other comments.
>
> This is a 2+ week WG adoption call for draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis to
> adopt as NETCONF WG item.
>
> Please state your opinion on the mail list by December 30, 2016 with
> "yes/support" or "no support".
>
> If you support, please let us know what you would like to address
> additionally.
> If you don't support, please elaborate your reasons.
>
> Thank you,
> Mehmet & Mahesh
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 7, 2016 9:20 AM
> To: mersue@gmail.com
> Cc: andy@yumaworks.com; netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] new NACM draft
>
> MehmetErsue <mersue@gmail.com <mailto:mersue@gmail.com> > wrote:
> > Hi Andy, Martin,
> >
> > thank you for the initial draft.
> >
> > We discussed in IETF 97 different issues and the additional sections
> > we could add.
>
> Ok.  But do we have to resolve all issues before adopting this document?  I
> think the current document is ready for adoption, and then the WG can work
> on fixing any open issues.
>
> > IIRC the list was:
> > - schema-mount related text into schema-mount or the NACM draft,
>
> I think schema mount needs to discuss how it works with NACM.  This should
> be an open issue in schema mount.
>
> > - assigning priorities to clients,
>
> I don't believe this is a NACM issue.
>
> > - access control on dynamic datastores (e.g. I2RS),
>
> The text in 3.2 probably need to be relaxed a bit to allow NACM to be
> applied to other datastores.
>
> > - the issue from RFC 6536 with parent/child relationships which is
> > important for RESTCONF.
>
> Can you elaborate on this?
>
>
> /martin
>
>
>
> >
> > I would like to suggest to have a discussion on these issues and
> > understand whether they should be included.
> >
> > Mehmet
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:10 AM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com
> <mailto:andy@yumaworks.com> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > A new version of draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis has been posted:
> > > https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-bierman-netconf-rfc6536bis-01.txt
> > >
> > >
> > > We would like this draft to be adopted as the starting point for
> > > item #5 in the current NETCONF charter.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Andy and Martin
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Netconf mailing list
> > > Netconf@ietf.org <mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Mehmet
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>