Re: [Netconf] [OPSAWG] guidance on draft-kwatsen-reverse-ssh

[Phil Shafer <[e-mail]>]

"Randy Presuhn" writes:
>One (I'll call it the "narrow" one) is the question of how a device new to the
>network lets management know that it exists so that it can be (more fully)
>configured. The other (I'll call it the "broad" one) includes the issues of
>overcoming NAT.

The terms "broad" and "narrow" seem meaningless in this discussion.
Can we choose better terms?  "new-device" and "reachability" are
perhaps more self-explanitory.

>The broad problem is a different matter.  David
>Harrington's most persuasive arguments were addressed to it, rather than
>the narrow problem.

Under "Alternative Proposals", he lists:

    Develop call-home as an add-on to existing transports, changing
    only the initiator

which is essentially what Kent's done.

So given that this is an existing problem for which there is no
current solution, what's the best path forward?  Are there issues
with Kent's draft?

Thanks,
 Phil