Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Wed, 09 May 2018 16:56 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 EEC98126D85 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 09:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 6menMyvstfSu for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 09:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com [67.231.152.164]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4847B126BF7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2018 09:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108161.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w49GsPoU032358; Wed, 9 May 2018 09:56:21 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=TX2cN24RSZQWGkwn2VALcWwNnlCadnsis5ObVCEOAb4=; b=Er3FDsUNOYfQm65YQ0fwmOYL08Ks9uFggJeaGAduTPGagAPRLp6Om/XaiKpSOpbOW91u VtBgPmZj2SM5ChPX0ktbRXr7gVcuOhSr2Z7+wFyQB9zCYN0RhGTJTQVOjcqExmeFEpf6 sLBNDGaxA9Ftt+/hq3O8fSA1uqZNYAOzcWX0h2sk6cZZo25m88kwz2XKE3Yu8upxmQUm OQZXq5BVrFVfkgrkWAd+8aKr8FQFLs3XZ09xKXJGQ4G5fLqZR9BhxyC7i6OIhN0Oz2Au HYUQ5jC072aQcOkpBrGAud1y0hjhOZ5N7NjoJX+HCvb/JpNjvAqFt+T1VMcWbcr+GW3R +A==
Received: from nam03-co1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-co1nam03lp0020.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.181.20]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2hv11f0h14-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 09 May 2018 09:56:21 -0700
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.200.153) by BYAPR05MB4072.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.199.141) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.755.10; Wed, 9 May 2018 16:56:19 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c50:c79f:dbd0:7a9a]) by BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::5c50:c79f:dbd0:7a9a%13]) with mapi id 15.20.0755.012; Wed, 9 May 2018 16:56:19 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
Thread-Index: AQHT5wJEkxmjjxk4W0WcLhw63ptjzqQnNkmA///+0ACAAEtXgP//28iA
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 16:56:19 +0000
Message-ID: <405F821C-8F5E-4C09-808D-CF73CBBB0215@juniper.net>
References: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net> <20180509.124031.133724992787735358.mbj@tail-f.com> <C4A4B0CC-F297-41E1-96C7-33C52ABE9C4F@juniper.net> <20180509.170555.1500894260865000231.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180509.170555.1500894260865000231.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB4072; 7:CP+D/RVVhHdpkQ6wqe4X5tPIIGMG6h+MuCfvj2qDjHsLufCHPlZW2bXqHMLuEoq/aNyJNYsKgWz+gjp4DFIpwkoX7VMc4mr6L91yulz0TOi1Llx05Tq+MbSNZnuuW6I1fPCEjRMr10elJ85ODF2xCoOdo7dNtU7eJGQqXoRMDpHHHEmO/XgFl07BDQuQgJqliYlaNpGoywXqKYc97YK8bnT+QnlHzDS0Kbw2SghJlIRAhCqnYcPugri7MWQLBuFQ
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(48565401081)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4072;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4072:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB4072F81EB0C3C1F938C768F2A5990@BYAPR05MB4072.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3002001)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123564045)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123560045)(6072148)(201708071742011); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4072; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4072;
x-forefront-prvs: 0667289FF8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39380400002)(376002)(366004)(346002)(39860400002)(396003)(199004)(189003)(6486002)(229853002)(102836004)(99286004)(6512007)(36756003)(6436002)(6916009)(76176011)(14454004)(3660700001)(6506007)(3280700002)(68736007)(316002)(58126008)(6116002)(3846002)(2906002)(33656002)(476003)(81166006)(11346002)(82746002)(106356001)(105586002)(93886005)(5660300001)(7736002)(5250100002)(26005)(478600001)(8676002)(81156014)(4326008)(8936002)(186003)(305945005)(2616005)(97736004)(66066001)(486006)(86362001)(25786009)(83716003)(446003)(6246003)(53936002)(2900100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4072; H:BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: I4/elcb4iM4yO9tSYukXGb+244zUyca6UPixFLxhj/lkOleWY84HAkVgTZCSaE1VvEMkSHdjExp9wArfCujE11U4RdJRJv2GFwXQ/K6l6gWbl7ne0FbIO2Nu0woDHq8Hw7nYm1L4CkH9YOE24onJDd5nw4KMAqV0hLA2FAd5C+SzVF8Nk4qFjSE3Ig9/yARA
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C2D89378B4AEB64C91424E1D82736038@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 51233109-c1f9-464d-8d92-08d5b5cdc945
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 51233109-c1f9-464d-8d92-08d5b5cdc945
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 09 May 2018 16:56:19.1713 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4072
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-09_06:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=887 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805090158
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/aAbs-97S8WJY_u-eFaU1tJfTL3E>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Wed, 09 May 2018 16:56:25 -0000


> I don't think it would require any significant changes to the draft.
> You can still use the term "zerotouch-information", and explain that
> it means either "redirect-information" or "onboarding-information".

But more than needed when we only need to agree that the existing 
situation is okay with rc:yang-data.  You've never explained why
this can't be so.  Juergen said on the netmod thread that the 
statement in RFC 8040 is not clear.  Why is this even an issue?

Kent