IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 14:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 95659120130; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:56:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 vf2c6fvSvTNG; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24AD1200F4; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.41]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7CDD71AE049B; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 15:56:45 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 15:56:16 +0100
Message-Id: <20191104.155616.1730122739409524776.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: bill.wu@huawei.com
Cc: netconf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA93E6464@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA93E6464@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/YoI5eZ2LpYfBKjzwF3EGbINoQ6s>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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, 04 Nov 2019 14:56:49 -0000

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
> -----邮件原件-----
> 发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com] 
> 发送时间: 2019年11月4日 21:57
> 收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
> 抄送: netconf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org
> 主题: Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Trimming to open issues...
> 
> Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Thanks Martin, see reply inline below.
> > 
> > -----邮件原件-----
> > 发件人: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com]
> 
> > o  Abstract and Introduction
> > 
> >   These both contain:
> > 
> >     The reset operation may be used e.g. during initial
> >     zero-touch configuration
> > 
> >   and in the Introduction there's a reference to RFC 8572.
> > 
> >   But what does this actually mean?
> > [Qin]: It means the key word zero-touch comes from RFC8572.
> 
> I get that part.  I was wondering about the meaning of the sentence.
> How can "reset" be used "during initial zero-touch configuration"?
> 
> [Qin]: I think "reset" can be used at the beginning of session setup or in the middle of session when the existing configuration
> Has fatal error.
> Maybe change it into "before initial zero-touch configuration"?

I don't think this is correct; noone will invoke "factory-reset"
*before* the initial ztp -- rather, the factory default config will
contain config to enable ztp (see e.g. section A.1 in RFC 8572).
Perhaps simply remove this sentence?

Kent, do you have an opinion?


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email