[netconf] [IANA #1353870] expert review for draft-ietf-netconf-http-client-server (xml-registry)

[Amanda Baber via RT <[e-mail]>]

Hi Tim,

This is on Thursday's telechat agenda. Can you let us know before then whether we should ask an AD to hold DISCUSS?

thanks,
Amanda

On Fri Aug 16 16:19:51 2024, [e-mail] wrote:
> [moving Amanda and Martin to BCC]
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> >> Whether IETF should publish YANG modules enabling the configuration
> >> of unsecure protocols has been discussed before.  I don’t know if a
> >> definitive resolution came out of it, but my understanding is that
> >> IETF YANG modules should support widely-deployed infrastructure.  In
> >> particular, protocols that are current or deprecated, but never
> >> protocols that are obsolete.
> >
> > This implies that YANG is frequently interchanged on insecure plain-
> > text channels? Eek, didn’t know that. If I were on the IESG I’d be
> > very negative about this, but I’m not. I’ve made my point, if nobody
> > else is upset then you’re probably fine.
> 
> This draft specifies YANG for just the HTTP protocol layer.  This
> config can be mixed-n-matched with the YANG from other protocol layers
> to create the configuration for a protocol stack.
> 
> FWIW, the RESTCONF protocol sits on top of HTTP, but profiles it by
> mandating mutual authentication.  So whilst this YANG allows “http” in
> the general case, it is not allowed in the specific case.
> 
> 
> 
> >>> <!-- The outermost element below doesn't exist in the data model.
> >>> -->
> >>> <!--  It simulates if the "grouping" were a "container" instead.
> >>> -->
> >>>
> >>> I totally don’t understand this, but maybe someone who’s a YANG
> >>> expert would?  I note that, in the example, if the outer “http-
> >>> client” element didn’t exist, the default namespace wouldn’t be
> >>> declared, and the “uri” element wouldn’t be in any namespace at
> >>> all. So maybe the namespace declaration would be better right there
> >>> on the “uri” element?
> >>
> >> This is a fair comment.   There are four examples in the draft that
> >> follow this convention.   FWIW, in other drafts I sometimes create a
> >> dummy “usage” YANG module to wrap “grouping” statements into
> >> containers.  What I’m doing here could be characterized as a
> >> shortcut.
> >
> > First of all you’re using the words “grouping” and “container” and I
> > don’t understand what they mean in this context. Is this standard
> > YANG terminology? If so, then OK I guess.
> 
> Yes, “grouping” and “container” are standard statements in YANG.
> 
> 
> > If not, please explain what you mean.  I guess the only purpose of
> > the outer element is to carry the namespace declaration? If so, you
> > could either:
> >
> > Say “Assume that the default namespace has been mapped to XXX in some
> > containing element”, or
> > Put the namespace declaration right on the contained <uri> element
> > then you don’t need any extra apparatus.
> >
> > Or maybe something else.
> 
> Suggestion #1 is doable.  Anyone on the list have ideas?  Is the
> existing text bad?
> 
> Suggestion #2 is not so doable, because the other examples have many
> more lines than just the “uri” line.  Yes, the namespace could appear
> in each, but it wouldn’t be not nice.
> 
> 
> Kent