Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 07:15:52PM +0200, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Section 1.1. Terminology
> 
> I would suggest to bring the terms client/manager/
> application vs. agent/server/device as early as 
> possible into relation. The document mainly avoids 
> the usage of the terms manager and agent though 
> there are some leftovers.
> 
> OLD: 
>    client: A client invokes protocol operations on a server.
> NEW: 
>    client: A client (manager, application) invokes 
>    protocol operations on a server (agent, device).
> 
> OLD: 
>    server: A server executes protocol operations invoked by a client.
> NEW: 
>    server: A server (agent, device) executes protocol 
>    operations invoked by a client (manager, application).

I am against this change. The terminology is client and server; if
there are any leftovers of other terms, we should remove them. There
is a huge difference between a device and a NETCONF server, same for
an application and a NETCONF client.
 
> Section 9. Security Considerations
> 
> I would suggest to add a few sentences for the EOM handling 
> and the possible thread concerning section 3. It would be 
> interesting to recommend a possible reaction if this happens 
> frequently, e.g. to drop the NETCONF session.

4741bis does not have an EOM marker - so how can we discuss it in
the security considerations?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>