Re: [netconf] AD review of draft-ietf-netconf-sztp-csr

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,


> Hi Kent,
> 
> Thanks for the extra details/explanation.  Please see inline …

<snip>

 
> I hadn’t picked up on that nuance, and I agree that this makes an out of band approach less efficient and less helpful.

No problem.

 
> Not necessary.  I’m happy with your explanation as to why having it inband pragmatically makes more sense.

Okay.


 
> I still think we should put “csr-support” and “csr” under a "choice” though, as the use-case for sending both at the same time is very small and it seems wrong to encourage/suggest it’s a good idea or to ask servers to have to support the case.
> 
>  
> 
> Agreed.

Update made the to my local copy.  


> My understanding is more along these lines:

<big snip>

> I suspect that most RFCs today, handle the split between (1) and (2) in an adhoc way, by having the introduction describe briefly reference the docs that fit into (1).

Agreed, but it is not for now  ;)

I just move RFC 3688 to Normative (RFC 6020 was already Normative)


> PS: there’s a separate email thread (Reuse of SZTP-CSR YANG definition in BRSKI-AE) regarding this document that is pending your feedback.  Ideally I can collect that and thus apply all updates in one shot.
> 
> Sorry, I had missed this thread.  I’ve now replied.

I’ll post an update with both sets of changes. 

In the meanwhile, here's the Git commit: https://github.com/netconf-wg/sztp-csr/commit/1bb76e45163ec6a9d06657dcf689798e4409c712



> Thanks,
> Rob
> 

Cheers,
Kent