Re: [netconf] Today's update to client-server drafts

Kent Watsen <> Fri, 22 May 2020 16:40 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F09AE3A082F for <>; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m3Y9XK_oyqkC for <>; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB3C13A0B00 for <>; Fri, 22 May 2020 09:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono;; t=1590165657; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=1GrF7doXik7o6QkXyoeQXG6y5dV8Peia7IcqA64pMbU=; b=cEWztWm/XPeYyxa3hFapR42zt+3BPRYaelj+NyQy7m9rS1/x7JR8cPiweClxXUSp P4MbR6rLhc5ME6/BgfTDWYoZSQvt0hDKVqqoHFSxhiLeWW21AqcamMvuPnYn5R4mtb9 0MJQhtIiRRqGhKSx/ef8RSZoOORS+0THMMGhZ0z8=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Kent Watsen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:40:57 +0000
Cc: "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.05.22-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Today's update to client-server drafts
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 May 2020 16:41:00 -0000

Hi Mahesh,

> What would it take to get the remaining drafts into WGLC?

The pending activities are:

    - tcp-client-server: 
        - finalize proxy solution
    - ssh-client-server: 
        - discuss issues with the 'ssh-host-keys' node
    - tls-client-server: 
        - discuss issue with the 'ee-certs' node
        - discuss issue with the psk 'id' type
    - http-client-server:
        - finalize proxy solution
        - finalize security considerations

We're currently 7 weeks out from the 108 draft cutoff, and 9 weeks out from the conference itself.  It would be nice to do something like this:

    - now:     start 2-wk LC for ct/ts/ks
    - in 2wks: start 1-wk LC for tcp 
    - in 3wks: start 2-wk LC for ssh/tls
    - in 5wks: start 1-wk LC for http
    - in 6wks: start 2-wk LC for nc/rc
    - end all LC in 8wks.

But that is only possible if (1) we're able to resolve all the pending items while simultaneously doing LCs on the earlier drafts...or (2) folks are willing to provide reviews on the drafts as they are, in part helping to close the pending activities.

Another option would be to (3) just do:

    - now: start 2-wk LC for ct+ts+ks
    - after resolving pending issue: start 2-wk LC for tcp
    - update all drafts based on the fallout of above reviews
    - present remaining open issues at 108 
    - update remaining drafts accordingly
    - resume the LCs shortly after 108

I prefer (2) or (3), as (1) puts too much work on me in a short period of time, and I have a big deliverable coming up in my other life outside the IETF.