IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Thu, 23 March 2017 07:44 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
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 1E2C01300E8 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:44:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
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 ai9SEkh4UKVS for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [217.31.204.67]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67C9E1300CF for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:44:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:94c9:cda4:e382:bb7b] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:94c9:cda4:e382:bb7b]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B967C6012D; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:44:02 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1490255042; bh=kkjuRBkl493u2Q0ClK/7HFT1dE7Aq2D9tTY+oSl8/qg=; h=From:Date:To; b=dpDlxZ7GmclqcXT5Bm6Pe/FarTdiEtc2kVWw9nMnHHtTZXpwLZj6IgeHlXUnX2yDB cHcHE0C5kJqCFNW5W72c+44SPAJtKx9g7CeuYQGPI9cvl+CGLQoJN1uRFIE5ZCOFOo YJTrL5lLvkZxvYnDKJCUmE2xd2GINLMRq3nSwt4U=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <60a3f9ccb40f4f1a8a4d2a7992b6514b@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 08:44:02 +0100
Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <315B00F8-F6E3-4779-853B-C424EA906CF2@nic.cz>
References: <005101d2975f$ae87ac20$0b970460$@ndzh.com> <017d01d29769$0df70b20$29e52160$@gmail.com> <010701d29771$a45f66e0$ed1e34a0$@ndzh.com> <026601d2977f$8d059600$a710c200$@gmail.com> <685B9088-7557-4C6E-9A8F-54C3208DB312@juniper.net> <7217bc23-0e1e-c250-929d-e18c3f0a800f@cisco.com> <07b601d2a197$9865d5b0$c9318110$@gmail.com> <20170321082015.GC35044@elstar.local> <0f17c698ae2645988692ba1eef007d79@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <37950223-F83B-40FD-8CA4-9A790D0A917E@nic.cz> <20170322084751.GA37843@elstar.local> <804C3246-DE92-40CD-9A46-6CC662FE9727@nic.cz> <6802426F-D189-40CD-B3AE-8B007C373528@gmail.com> <60a3f9ccb40f4f1a8a4d2a7992b6514b@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/OLYJ_Nn7NqPVQzeLk5JdTxEAPoo>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 07:44:08 -0000

> On 23 Mar 2017, at 02:42, Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
>>> A more detailed explanation is here (search for SSE):
>>> 
>>> https://www.infoq.com/articles/websocket-and-http2-coexist
>> 
>> To the question asked by Juergen. Is this reason enough for us to separate
>> notifications for RESTCONF to be split from RESTCONF itself?
> 
> Notifications have never been delivered over RESTCONF.  RESTCONF is a just a way to signal / establish the relationship so that HTTP/ TCP can be used.
> 
> draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif proposes a mechanism which works with HTTP2.  This mechanism could be considered by a future RESTCONF revision should people want to re-open that newly minted RFC.

IMO it makes sense to keep it separate because mechanisms that notifications can use are not part of HTTP, there are at least two alternatives (SSE and WebSockets) and may be more in the future. RESTCONF is built on top of HTTP and it should stay so.

Lada

> 
> In either case, we should care about this in our charter. The question is how prescriptive do we want our charter to be in defining the resulting structure of new/potentially adopted drafts.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
>>> 
>>> Lada
> 

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email