IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Wed, 09 May 2018 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 082DB12D942 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 08:56:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 j_5m_FhIAHTt for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 08:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (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 218C112D892 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2018 08:56:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w49EU0vw004277; Wed, 9 May 2018 07:36:20 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=F3GST7OBwSvQx8P6AvER2+h0lqiXQJt3bbMozK5e/J4=; b=Mvyr0nUizvKSRmBDnTyvRuTPxLGLUK8VqMhbTGRzAgUS54iNv8WoTCNxfq6zLsbS2/T8 eO4l8VuZdA6QEp31Aen7ZlsQ9GkjLFenb3jBe2G+I/l4xFcKjbUUteEFl2aXEbWLPze+ LZaKUiAGRjFDmgEXHBE6v87OUXPFMJHt95nxwpw84AHwkbeW/FTqDMe/eVHmcEZUej61 Qc24P9xv+8fUtpQjRkMZljLGTKbvUiSg6OuTRl9GHWbGb2WEuO7jG1DWN/dP0nrPLyy8 TzOtfuSLW0pJiGi+RyR2NweMVUtN22FRGjLjFFbbMcL+atBb1tgqAu7WPF9Nr2jZiNdb kA==
Received: from nam03-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-by2nam03lp0056.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.56]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2hv11f087f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 09 May 2018 07:36:19 -0700
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.200.153) by BYAPR05MB4565.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.204.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.20.776.4; Wed, 9 May 2018 14:36:17 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c50:c79f:dbd0:7a9a]) by BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c50:c79f:dbd0:7a9a%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0755.012; Wed, 9 May 2018 14:36:17 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
Thread-Index: AQHT5wJEkxmjjxk4W0WcLhw63ptjzqQnNkmA///+0AA=
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 14:36:17 +0000
Message-ID: <C4A4B0CC-F297-41E1-96C7-33C52ABE9C4F@juniper.net>
References: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net> <20180509.124031.133724992787735358.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180509.124031.133724992787735358.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB4565; 7:5TAYf+/VSUzSUVuUd+KIk96/AcdqXCeW/LihWR/6zKGB6jwMrzJWNUkGH7maQI+fifMmXTgIi1RZXOjfMl86gAPcfCn6vUIezrO79PSxbJjJFLqt5a9ng6HOoljR4Ly6h8czZKuY4lGAP3c5E33U4ZlcPoAVP0Mpf5ugbiTEnalygVYAq01Jn+rmoLALyBQ6J561TYHvjay+c5BgN8eORrjoXbcuc4S1HEpeJdad7ntG3yL3X7JVbxOzGwiW2s3Z
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(5600026)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4565;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4565:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB45650EB3E85079C288BE8F8DA5990@BYAPR05MB4565.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(3002001)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4565; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4565;
x-forefront-prvs: 0667289FF8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(366004)(396003)(39380400002)(376002)(39860400002)(346002)(199004)(189003)(51444003)(3846002)(105586002)(6116002)(106356001)(6486002)(82746002)(6436002)(229853002)(6916009)(36756003)(14454004)(2900100001)(86362001)(97736004)(5660300001)(59450400001)(6506007)(102836004)(76176011)(6512007)(53936002)(68736007)(3660700001)(3280700002)(4326008)(186003)(6246003)(33656002)(26005)(25786009)(99286004)(2906002)(5250100002)(83716003)(478600001)(476003)(66066001)(8676002)(7736002)(2616005)(446003)(81156014)(305945005)(8936002)(81166006)(58126008)(11346002)(486006)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4565; H:BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: S7u0MlnxWW0Y/gcbA3CDVj0sYb+3MXV5cEfrsQjwWP/bh+zKC10MsDQwJMAzQQXBfWSLxv5XSiNIbHZ+S5TC6WEbD74eNhyJCwBJNYCmEZpib8c2dJ62KDSjLuudmBFOjfH8jQDM14IebNGxZGza+Vhs+3uAVSLL7R6XBx+eZ0av65O1X6Es44zblOL9W/Lj
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <8F6250DDB00E7D4D89EF1501217BC727@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 6a38b9ad-30f2-4c8b-808d-08d5b5ba399d
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6a38b9ad-30f2-4c8b-808d-08d5b5ba399d
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 May 2018 14:36:17.7492 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4565
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-09_05:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805090137
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/T6OgCvbF30EOoU27b3T_-dOdj2E>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
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: Wed, 09 May 2018 15:56:36 -0000

Hi Martin,

Just cherry-picking on a few comments:


> If it wasn't for the timing issue, I'd vote for (d); I think that 
> is the proper thing to do.  

agreed.

> But I really want to see this draft
> published, 

yes

> so I think it is best to do (e).  We can always do (d) 
> in a future bis version, or in a future separate document.

removing is better than having a non-normative example?  Note that,
in both cases, (d) can be done in the future...



> Regarding the yang-data reference, I suggest you change the draft
> to use rc:yang-data, and split the current "zerotouch-information"
> into two separate rc:yang-data "redirect-information" and
> "onboarding-information".

why? will that draft not get published soon enough?  I expect this
draft will go through a long SecDir review, yang-data-ext should be
done by then.  I know that some on the netmod list are talking about
abandoning that draft, but no decision has been made yet.

The zerotouch draft has way too much text invested in the "zerotouch-
information" artifact being polymorphic nature to seriously consider
having two unrelated artifacts, when the easier answer is to agree 
that, in this case, the yang-data does in fact contain "data definition 
statements that result in exactly one container data node definition".
We don't even need to change any text, in this document or in RFC 
8040, in order to have this agreement.  We would only need `pyang` 
to stop flagging it as an error.


Kent // contributor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email