Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper designation of receiver
"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Mon, 02 July 2018 16:09 UTC
Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.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 8377D130EDD for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:09:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 HlFWrEY0eX8P for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9092B131228 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:09:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=19558; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1530547769; x=1531757369; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=GnTnpRz8JmSs0K+9W09fuFDlj9T3M4qvUft/+oGMNIY=; b=UMoSqkDIJSnVrDUA5e8or9JugPrccQO7vWUey4pesbmk8+aPi8MowyC/ oz9itZ6c+Ls4nevywC9vavOjlAdZW6tFmzf3q4ekIDkrkSDLoE9PNtj8q t426hJ2qqUpsKur+wvHYQhYsBAIQSsPUvzcesXDgDvWHLOUQm62UodfKO c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BcAgBxTTpb/5NdJa1SChkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDHyUFYn8oCotzjD6CB3WULxSBZguEbAKDNCE0GAECAQECAQECbSiFNgEBAQECATo/BQsCAQgOBwIBDQgBCBAyHQgCBA4FCBOCOkyBdwiqJohMgS6HPYEwgVY/gQ+CEUk1gUGCdBoVTgcJDoUAAoxNAYUUh2QJAo8TgUiGdoUfkWACERMBgSQdOIFScBU7gmmCJBeOFgFvjyKBH4EaAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,299,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="137886383"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Jul 2018 16:09:22 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w62G9LcK026609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 2 Jul 2018 16:09:22 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:09:21 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Mon, 2 Jul 2018 12:09:21 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "kwatsen@juniper.net" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "Tim Jenkins (timjenki)" <timjenki@cisco.com>, "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper designation of receiver
Thread-Index: AQHT7qZjKKPiRp7oL0Gw54ItH09w2qQ1f5yAgABaRoCAAFIXAP//0cbAgCYz3oCAALf2gIALzo6AgACF3OCAAIGQgP//v4TQgAHRv4D//78WkABEsRYAAAapTSAAjo35gAAIQuKQABHb3oAACd63QAAMMw8AAAhG1QD//9cTgIAAL8jQgAPD2AD/+w/egA==
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 16:09:20 +0000
Message-ID: <449678cf28c144bb8ef0e96c8e9e33c6@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <01cdb70696e84d7387e1ef7c72d65fc7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180626.221311.93904112711512999.mbj@tail-f.com> <f2642307874945b997dfa12ee6f8f2a1@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180629.103356.2106784004576964601.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180629.103356.2106784004576964601.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.230]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/O_Lzhi-HUK8Clkgx_oVdvikuRlM>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper designation of receiver
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Mon, 02 Jul 2018 16:09:35 -0000
Hi Martin, > From: Martin Bjorklund, June 29, 2018 4:34 AM > > Hi, > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, June 26, 2018 4:13 PM > > > Subject: Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper designation of > > > receiver > > > > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, June 26, 2018 2:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, June 26, 2018 4:11 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Kent Watsen, June 25, 2018 3:43 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> <kent-orig> Okay, glad to see that you embrace > > > > > > > > > >> >> using ietf-netconf-server, rather than ietf-netconf-client. > > > > > > > > > >> >> And I'll grant you that it's infinitely more > > > > > > > > > >> >> likely that the ietf-netconf-server module would > > > > > > > > > >> >> be implemented (i.e., the top-level > > > > > > > > > >> >> /ncs:netconf-server container exists), more so > > > > > > > > > >> >> than the ietf-netconf-client module > > > would be implemented. > > > > > > > > > >> >> The WG created the top-level /ncc:netconf- client > > > > > > > > > >> >> container more for the sake of symmetry than for > > > > > > > > > >> >> having a use-case for when it would be > > > > > > > > > >> >> implemented. I think the question to ask is, is > > > > > > > > > >> >> it > > > > > > > > > >> possible that a device wants to use SN but doesn't > > > > > > > > > >> *implement* > > > > > > > > > >> ietf-netconf- server? > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> <Eric> Yes, this will be possible. Reasons would include: > > > > > > > > > >> >> alternative > > > > > > > > > >> transports > > > > > > > > > >> >> (COMI, UDP), HTTP2 configured subscriptions (which > > > > > > > > > >> >> might use > > > > > > > > > >> >> ietf-restconf- server), or no need for a publisher > > > > > > > > > >> >> to include the configured subscriptions feature. > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> <Kent> I should've be more specific: is it > > > > > > > > > >> >> possible that a device would use netconf-notif > > > > > > > > > >> >> (where your leafref is > > > > > > > > > >> >> defined) but not implement > > > > > > > > > >> ietf-netconf- > > > > > > > > > >> >> server? Similarly, restconf-notif would > > > > > > > > > >> >> presumably have a leafref to > > > > > > > > > >> >> ietf- > > > > > > > > > >> >> restconf-server, etc. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >Yes. Cases would include: > > > > > > > > > >> >(a) platform doesn't support configured > > > > > > > > > >> >subscriptions > > > > > > > > > >> >(b) vendor has not yet implemented > > > > > > > > > >> >ietf-netconf-server, and uses something > > > > > > > > > >> else. > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> (a) is this a valid case? - I thought this > > > > > > > > > >> conversion only regards configured subscriptions. No > > > > > > > > > >> leafref or equivalent would be needed to support a dynamic > subscription. > > > Right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Correct. But your question was "can you use > > > > > > > > > > netconf-notif without a leafref > > > > > > > > > to...". > > > > > > > > > > Needing both drafts is absolutely the case for dynamic > > > > > > > > > > subscription support, and ietf-netconf-server would > > > > > > > > > > not be needed > > > > > here. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read the above a few times, but I'm having a hard time > > > > > > > > > understanding it. Can say it differently or provide an example? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dynamic subscriptions over NETCONF requires > > > > > > > > draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications. With > > > > > > > > these deployments, there there is no call home, there is > > > > > > > > no configuration, and there need be no > > > > > > > > ietf-netconf-server.yang leafref (or use of ietf-netconf-server.yang > grouping). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> (b) this seems like a possibility, but then I think > > > > > > > > > >> this make the case for why a leafref to the global > > > > > > > > > >> *conf servers definitions won't always > > > > > > > > > work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree that nothing here will always work. Deployments > > > > > > > > > > commonly will have a heterogeneous mixture of model > > > > > > > > > > ecosystem > > > > > models. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This actually makes a *very* strong case for why the > > > > > > > > > > leafref should be added as an augmentation from the > > > > > > > > > > *conf-server > > > models. > > > > > > > > > > That way leafref augmentations are explicitly tied to > > > > > > > > > > the actual implementation of the > > > > > > > > > model against which they refer. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not in the *conf-server models, the augments go into the > > > > > > > > > *conf-notif models, I assume that is what you meant. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My assertion is a good solution would be updating > > > > > > > > ietf-netconf-server.yang per what is below. Note that an > > > > > > > > answer even further below regarding the sharing of a > > > > > > > > single NETCONF session across multiple subscriptions and > > > > > > > > typical > > > > > > > > RFC6241 protocol interactions is assumed. But we could > > > > > > > > also insert your ietf-netconf-server.yang grouping just as > > > > > > > > effectively where the leafref is > > > > > seen. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway here are the following changes which would be made > > > > > > > > to ietf-netconf-server.yang > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > import ietf-subscribed-notifications { prefix sn; } > > > > > > > > import ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications { prefix > > > > > > > > nsn; } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > feature subscription-support { > > > > > > > > description > > > > > > > > "The 'subscription-support' feature indicates that > > > > > > > > the NETCONF > > > > > server > > > > > > > > supports configured subscriptions over call-home > > > > > > > > connections."; > > > > > > > > reference > > > > > > > > "RFC xxxx: Customized Subscriptions to a > > > > > > > > Publisher's Event > > > Streams"; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > augment > > > > > > > > "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" > > > { > > > > > > > > if-feature "subscription-support"; > > > > > > > > when 'derived-from(../../../transport, "nsn:netconf")'; > > > > > > > > description > > > > > > > > "This augmentation allows NETCONF specific > > > > > > > > parameters to be > > > > > exposed > > > > > > > > for a receiver."; > > > > > > > > leaf netconf-endpoint { > > > > > > > > type leafref { > > > > > > > > path > > > > > > > > "/ncs:netconf-server/ncs:call-home/ncs:netconf- > > > > > client/ncs:name"; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > description > > > > > > > > "Remote client which need to initiate the NETCONF transport > > > > > > > > if > > > an > > > > > > > > existing NETCONF session from that client is not > > > > > > > > available."; > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With such a construct, it is impossible to add a leafref > > > > > > > > (or > > > > > > > > grouping) within ietf-subscribed-notifications unless > > > > > > > > ietf-netconf-server.yang exists. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> This is why I > > > > > > > > > >> was thinking before that your modules might > > > > > > > > > >> themselves > > > > > > > > > >> *use* the > > > > > > > > > >> *conf- server-groupings (while pruning out unneeded > > > > > > > > > >> parts, e.g., the "listen" subtree), so that it's > > > > > > > > > >> independent of what the system has implemented at the > > > > > > > > > >> global > > > level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have 500 subscriptions, you then have to > > > > > > > > > > populate > > > > > > > > > > 500 identical > > > > > > > > > groupings. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, you have one grouping, with 500 > > > > > > > > > /netconf-server/call-home/netconf-client > > > > > > > > > instances. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. But I don't know why someone would voluntarily do > > > > > > > > add > > > > > > > > 500 repeated elements to a configuration datastore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And yes this is possible. But it makes the part of > > > > > > > > > > me which likes Normalized data quite uncomfortable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But as I said before, it the WG wants such redundancy, fine. > > > > > > > > > > Either choice need not impact decisions as part of LC. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't believe that is a WG-preference thing, so much > > > > > > > > > as an outcome of the current design, which is that each > > > > > > > > > receiver for each subscription has its own state-machine > > > > > > > > > and protocol messages. There is no sharing; no two > > > > > > > > > receives can use the same RFC 6241 NETCONF session, > > > > > > > > > which effectively translates to each receiver having its > > > > > > > > > own /netconf-server/call-home/netconf-client > > > > > > > > > instance, > > > > > > > > > right? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is incorrect. Protocol and state-machine messages > > > > > > > > have been decoupled from the transport session. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not sure why you think that subscriptions are unable > > > > > > > > to use a common NETCONF session? Implementations of > > > > > > > > dynamic NETCONF subscriptions have been doing this for years. > > > > > > > > Subscription multiplexing of configured and dynamic > > > > > > > > subscriptions over a common transport is a pre-requisite > > > > > > > > for solution > > > scalability. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think muliplexing of configured and dynamic > > > > > > > subscriptions over a single session is possible. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If this is the intention of the current design, the document > > > > > > > needs to explain how this is supposed to be done. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is your concern? > > > > > > > > > > Suppose a client connects to a server and starts a dynamic > > > > > subscription. Can this session somehow be used for a configured > > > subscription? I assume not. > > > > > > > > Why not? > > > > > > How would a server know that a certain configured receiver is the > > > same as an ongoing session? And as a client, suppose I just opened > > > a session to send one request and then I plan to close the sesssion. > > > I probably don't want notifs on this session as well. > > > > This is a valid scenario. And while a fix for the current solution > > would be quite easy to do in text (i.e., through defining expectations > > of client behavior), it is not necessary to force this complexity on > > the client. So instead I propose updating the first paragraph of > > NETCONF-notif, section 6.2 to the following: > > > > "When a configured subscription enters the "valid" state, there is no > > guarantee a usable NETCONF transport session is currently in place > > with each associated receiver. As a result, the first configured > > subscription to a specific receiver MUST establish a NETCONF transport > > session via NETCONF call home [RFC8071] , section 4.1. This transport > > session MUST then be used by additional configured subscriptions > > targeting that the same receiver. This same receiver is identifiable > > on the publisher as one which targets the same address and port used > > to establish the existing NETCONF call home connection. > > This is not enough / correct. You also need to take the user name into > account. Per your other note, I think we are good here. > > This transport > > session MAY also be used by dynamic subscriptions and/or > > non-subscription related NETCONF operations originated by the NETCONF > > client. > > > > Until a "subscription-started" state change notification is > > successfully sent for a configured subscription, that subscription's > > receiver MUST remain in either the "connecting" or the "timeout" > > state." > > > > > > > > > Multiplexing multiple configured subscriptions over a single > > > > > > > transport session could be possible, but the document > > > > > > > doesn't mention > > > > > this. > > > > > > > Again, if this is the intention, it needs to be properly > > > > > > > described in the document. > > > > > > > > > > > > What is missing? The subscribed-notification draft section > > > > > > 2.5.1 and Figure 9 describe how each receiver is pushed their > > > > > > own state notifications. (I.e., the state machine is > > > > > > per-receiver. It is not per-subscription, nor is it > > > > > > per-transport.) > > > > > > > > > > If there are two different subscriptions configured, each has > > > > > its own list of receivers. Under which circumstances will the > > > > > server decide to use a single transport session for these two > > > > > different > > > subscriptions? > > > > > > > > If the "transport", "address", "port" are the same, then a single > > > > transport session can be used. > > > > > > What if the encoding is different? > > > > When there really is a different encoding for NETCONF (which is > > currently not supported in accordance with you earlier comments), we > > have the option of adding "encoding" to the list of properties which > > demand a different transport. However as there are not multiple > > encodings for NETCONF here, it is easy to ignore for now, especially > > as an implementation can simply define a different port for the target > > connection should the receiver really want different encoding someday. > > > > > What if the users are different? > > > > As you can identify specific ports with different call home, this will > > cover different users if a receiver can't de-multiplex. > > The solution must be robust enough to correctly handle all cases that it allows > to be confgigured. > > Anyway, if this whole issue is handled in the transport documents, I am happy. > Some transports will likely support this, and some will not. Works for me. > > > Etc. The point is that maybe there are cases when this can be done, > > > but you need to spell this out. > > > > For receiver configuration data right now, we just have receiver > > "name" which is a string. There is no need to tell vendors how to do > > call home configuration as this isn't really in scope. Solutions here > > will come soon enough with Kent's draft. > > > > > > During the reviews however, you and Kent have argued away both "port" > > > > and "address" from being objects under the receiver. So vendor > > > > specific augmentations will be needed to identify "address" > > > > and "port". > > > > > > I expect such objects to be added by the transport docs, not by > > > vendors (except for vendor-specific transports). > > > > Per the parallel thread with Kent, I fully support augmenting the call > > home document when it is ready. > > > > I think what we have now is fine. Note: we can always re-add > > "address" and "port" back to SN if enough people want to re-insert > > explicit receiver identification within the YANG model > > No! That would be a big mistake, since address and port are not enough for > receiver identification. Hopefully you agree by now. I do agree. I was trying to give a placeholder for Kent's "no-crypto" proposal. Per below, I think it better just to leave both "address" and "port" out. > > , and not leave > > it up to vendors. But we have already argued this one sufficiently. > > I would rather just declare the current solution sufficient. > > > > > > (Unless you are now ok with letting these objects back into the > > > > draft, just for the purposes of enable this a common receiver > > > > transport session identification.) The other option is to have a > > > > future leafref augmented to ietf-netconf-server.yang as described above. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't see any text about this in the document. > > > > > > > > I have added the following to the NETCONF-Notif document section > > > > on > > > configured subscriptions: > > > > > > > > > > > "It is possible to have multiple configured subscriptions sharing > > > > a common transport to a single receiver. The method of > > > > identifying that a receiver happens to be the same as used with > > > > another subscription is left up to implementers of this specification." > > > > > > I don't think this helps. It means that the client has no way of > > > knowing on which sessions to expect notifs. > > > > You are right that it won't be in the YANG file. But that is the > > result when you argued "address" and "port" out of receivers. > > See above. Yes. The version posted today will leave "address" and "port" out, leaving this issue up to vendors until ietf-netconf-server.yang completes. Eric > /martin > > > > > So for > > now the configuration is buried in vendor specific call home > > information. That information of course can be referenced by vendor > > specific additions. > > > > I think it best to leave it as is. And at some point we will have the > > ietf-netconf-server.yang model which will allow the vendor specific > > part go away. > > > > Eric > > > > > > The text above can be changed if you are ok with adding "address" > > > > and "port" back into the draft. > > > > > > > > > > > This said, "session sharing" can be acheived with the > > > > > > > current design, as well as with the alternative design where > > > > > > > the protocol is defined per receiver rather than per subscription. > > > > > > > > > > > > Agree. Any issues with NETCONF transport multiplexing of > > > > > > subscriptions > > > > > should be independent of the receiver YANG model. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But it won't be interoperable unless it is described. > > > > > > > > > > > > Likely NETCONF specific concerns would land in the NETCONF-notif. > > > > > > I am > > > > > happy to make any needed clarifications. > > > > > > > > > > I think you will need specific text in both > > > > > subscribed-notifications and in the transport drafts, if this is what you > want to support. > > > > > > > > I have added text to NETCONF-notif per above. > > > > > > > > For subscribed-notifications, I have added the sentence to the > > > > first paragraph > > > of the "configured subscriptions" section: > > > > > > > > "Multiple configured subscriptions MUST be supportable over a > > > > single transport session." > > > > > > See above. > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper designat… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper desi… Eric Voit (evoit)