Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Tue, 05 November 2019 00:51 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 105DE120147; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:51:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ID9YbrCToP0U; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2CDA712006F; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 16:51:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B916C38C4B70BF923243; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:51:49 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from DGGEML421-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.38) by LHREML714-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:51:48 +0000
Received: from DGGEML531-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.209]) by dggeml421-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.38]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Tue, 5 Nov 2019 08:51:40 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05
Thread-Index: AdWTcx8LJqoftY79TsiobEj5vz6Y4w==
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:51:41 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA93E94D9@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.31.203]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/N4Ubgke7PXUYp4yY50oA8YV2-LI>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05
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: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:51:54 -0000

Hi, Martin:
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] 
发送时间: 2019年11月4日 22:56
收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
抄送: netconf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com]
> 发送时间: 2019年11月4日 21:57
> 收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> 抄送: netconf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Trimming to open issues...
> 
> Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Martin, see reply inline below.
> > 
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com]
> 
> > o  Abstract and Introduction
> > 
> >   These both contain:
> > 
> >     The reset operation may be used e.g. during initial
> >     zero-touch configuration
> > 
> >   and in the Introduction there's a reference to RFC 8572.
> > 
> >   But what does this actually mean?
> > [Qin]: It means the key word zero-touch comes from RFC8572.
> 
> I get that part.  I was wondering about the meaning of the sentence.
> How can "reset" be used "during initial zero-touch configuration"?
> 
> [Qin]: I think "reset" can be used at the beginning of session setup 
> or in the middle of session when the existing configuration Has fatal error.
> Maybe change it into "before initial zero-touch configuration"?

I don't think this is correct; noone will invoke "factory-reset"
*before* the initial ztp -- rather, the factory default config will contain config to enable ztp (see e.g. section A.1 in RFC 8572).
Perhaps simply remove this sentence?

[Qin]:Understand, so factory default config in relevant datastore is still useful during initial zero touch configuration,how about the following change
OLD TEXT:
"

   This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory-
   default content.  The reset operation may be used e.g. during initial
   zero-touch configuration or when the existing configuration has major
   errors, so re-starting the configuration process from scratch is the
   best option.

.......

   Optionally a new "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined,
   that contains the data that will be copied over to the running
   datastore at reset.
"
NEW TEXT:
"
   This document defines a method to reset a server to its factory-
   default content.  The reset operation may be used e.g. 
   when the existing configuration has major
   errors, so re-starting the configuration process from scratch is the
   best option.

.......

   Optionally a new "factory-default" read-only datastore is defined,
   that contains the data that will be copied over to the running
   datastore at reset or during initial zero-touch configuration.
"
Hope this addresses your point.

Kent, do you have an opinion?


/martin