Re: [netconf] Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-22: (with COMMENT)

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Feb 29, 2024, at 10:04, Scharf, Michael <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Thanks for your comment. See below for a follow-up question.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Wouters via Datatracker <[e-mail]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2024 9:18 PM
>> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
>> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail];
>> [e-mail]
>> Subject: Paul Wouters' No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-22:
>> (with COMMENT)
>> 
>> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server-22: No Objection
>> 
>> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
>> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
>> introductory paragraph, however.)
>> 
>> 
>> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-
>> ballot-positions/
>> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>> 
>> 
>> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server/
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Similar to the ssh-server that defines keep-alives, I feel that if one believes
>> keepalives are defined at this layer, that same layer should also define
>> idle-timeout for a server.
> 
> Sorry, I am not sure if I understand this comment. Can you please expand?
> 
> At least when I checked last time, major TCP stacks had no such configuration parameter for the TCP stack. IMHO a YANG data model should not define a parameter that is not supported by running code.

Oh you are absolutely right!

I was mistakenly thinking of applications.

Paul