Re: [Netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dave Crocker <> Thu, 10 January 2019 17:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18879130EC1; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:26:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.4
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qREgmKyal5x0; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACD69128D52; Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:26:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id x0AHRa0Z024045 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:27:37 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=default; t=1547141258; bh=6HjfQaDEX/dKUSmO/4IKOPph2u+RlDDTy4IPdJ6vsYc=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ksbve6fTHVr5OwSNw13hYnuwzFpWwxqMLtmlmFBPSahggxNwfg2p/DkOxjPQFwi7E SpwcVLP/D6RXjm+5yEYJ/2xctmZMjt82Uva295IUufNZTjoWMYidSwHCWEQ+mfgPdU kzUkbrD1ZEl3qPu1dWDvl5cW5G156G2lTavVlBGI=
To: Kent Watsen <>, Dave Crocker <>, Adam Roach <>, Alexey Melnikov <>
Cc: The IESG <>, "" <>, "" <>, "" <>, Benjamin Kaduk <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Dave Crocker <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 09:26:22 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2019 17:26:38 -0000

On 1/9/2019 1:12 PM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> Thanks for your prompt reply and, yeah, sometimes the IETF-aliases are wonky.

Seems to have mostly worked for/with me in the past.  I hadn't heard 
that it is inconsistent.  Hmmm...  Might be worth getting ietf sysadmin 
involved to look at logs.

> Your response makes sense to me, but it immediately conjured the question of *why* is _sztp under _tcp, for this case?  This question isn't specifically to you, though your input would be appereciated.

Having no history of the group's activity, and merely looking at the 
relevant draft spec text, I'd assume it merely seemed natural, given 
that (entirely appropriate) use of _tcp for the corresponding SRV record 
-- on its own it certainly looks natural to me, especially given the 
long history of no registration discipline for use of TXT RRsets.

> To clarify, the draft uses DNS in two ways:
> 1) the first is for traditional SRV records, for which being under _tcp makes sense.

> 2) the second is for TXT records that, of and in themselves, are not describing a TCP service, so much as providing bootstrapping data, that may or may not cause the device to initiate a subsequent connection (TCP or otherwise).   For this case, we also have the _sztp record under _tcp, but *should* it be under the TLD instead?

Absent deep involvement in the work of the spec, and just basing my view 
on the small bits of the spec I've read, I'd suggest dropping use of 
_tcp for the TXT and just using _sztp as a globally-scoped attrleaf node 
name, registering it in the new attrleaf registry.


Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking