IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] is "boot image" the right term?

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Thu, 23 August 2018 14:37 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 5C3D8130E0C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:37:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 JQtNKKj--Iwh for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:37:32 -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 F3098130DF4 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:37:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108160.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w7NETPUu024420; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:37:27 -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=GkP7Rq7YaOlRGSVTu0hbEtLuZqLoWifWdYHawz+jvfQ=; b=asuTasSJ4Oe2dKYg1QQujLYZSKKdxtfgOLzilnHcsQ26xB7INW2s69Ni2Tu9+NEOYFlS FnflZ6fH66mOEZv6YgRdyVS3XZZmbl0VDzdtEQPPe38LyYK0ZWMcUHpB60mTeVpuetlF abWaZ8yCpcfaJ/iCFptjIjet2EnDmV34kYlIzUbReQMi8W5le7q9DoeenQ1b5htUnfYJ 17c8a+2iTflUcsSiB2/AhjaaofXp1zzKFKLDNLmSGx+VH7G1J/EKCjUWmR8ibQWLgNit 7xem+xSJ01D/W/EnWEb2XS91M0nvpePr33hOPpi9BY3FWbP84RCoGaoKJS9Z1uspQEzv jw==
Received: from nam04-bn3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam04lp0118.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.118]) by mx0b-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2m1s6v8kpq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Aug 2018 07:37:27 -0700
Received: from BYAPR05MB4664.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.233.78) by BYAPR05MB4744.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.233.138) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1101.5; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:37:24 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4664.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::189f:fdbc:2901:7e3d]) by BYAPR05MB4664.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::189f:fdbc:2901:7e3d%6]) with mapi id 15.20.1080.010; Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:37:24 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: tom petch <ietfc@btconnect.com>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] is "boot image" the right term?
Thread-Index: AQHUOYgCIJwKJL6U+0qRO170GKK1HKTNJ32A
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:37:24 +0000
Message-ID: <37DC0DE6-CFB1-452D-B6F0-668D1AEB32A6@juniper.net>
References: <025771A5-6FEF-4C6C-BDE7-8919339F426A@juniper.net> <228BA2F8-A23E-4E2E-A4BB-2C16B08E75DE@gmail.com> <024a01d43ad4$56600c80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
In-Reply-To: <024a01d43ad4$56600c80$4001a8c0@gateway.2wire.net>
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: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB4744; 6:uTcGU3/8O5BgDN8g7KF/LrBAGtju1I/tC6vQckTjfMcaz3xhq0ikyoH4IVRrOmc5tNtMKFKTCy37m8kxy9nGQv9GkFWfU6dR60Tj2FsMdD7r6uI8bax3/WRPLyzn5msfuYt//bDNdVR92Aw71ZME07MptNrpnoD3UJIgju+ctQzrga6DzIddSACeDyCIcbCTn/U9Bves3Stvzbzev7q6NS3uRQF2hK/2B6K24xEbLbNJqCmgK+6BNVG7J2xn+zvhTA6KUHZtGueLCI3ox43k2kYNQ+wZ7ZxO61dYYibK6khYDseesnaCnPDoo0UNQFygpHtjyr2FSFYJJwC2OoO2R/69MaX3qgR3LHBBLYTi75QZ1I9d/8hS+LZV7IT+uHvhYUdJOSIUwkF6RZgA1vS1w5i1EJmVfaCQ5sDdlIpuHkO04d1fayJPaCVa4eDBgO5S8+6GcPnXm3pxS7T+oeL8Lw==; 5:ReGKZx64A12S0Spevndu5GCj5NFWK7zAQCDUi9zFYZ0+WlctSvh4dSgM8eVmqso1gAf281pmM0swUNbHU7sxc3IaaYlxc/NECEPv1roPx/+km9CVHX8QFYg/jFJodr5aSFGT/oDwFI0awzAL3FowE1b2Rq1S82hZUEEyDSYeL0s=; 7:YH1gM3SkKc36iTYmskc1GPYcPpOYc67dACUgr4KIpGFxUFFD88K74b5FCQk4z/fSv98KHSeoBtifJ0GwVMAWN1BnL6gNG3GuAGKq8qPwj6N2V7cvZv9lEtc8Why4fAr3Rdgd+RqrktFPpV+vbZF4gE0xQ7KO2zTBusADFQuVAgm1YripvIqMaY6p2PCr/bBb60wyVDzZzwJuZc/xYzWpf05+65iP2XaTMq12r/NbB5bhV5uT3ZeaPijm3kkpH/3R
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 6fe33340-5bf0-49d9-2fdc-08d60905f153
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652040)(8989137)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990107)(5600074)(711020)(4618075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4744;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4744:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB474433E96A16C9344A3E6926A5370@BYAPR05MB4744.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162)(138986009662008)(85827821059158);
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(3231311)(944501410)(52105095)(93006095)(93001095)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123560045)(20161123558120)(201703131423095)(201703031522075)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123562045)(20161123564045)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4744; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4744;
x-forefront-prvs: 0773BB46AC
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(376002)(366004)(396003)(346002)(136003)(39860400002)(13464003)(189003)(199004)(25786009)(58126008)(99286004)(2900100001)(36756003)(296002)(33656002)(316002)(256004)(76176011)(14444005)(110136005)(2906002)(106356001)(105586002)(2616005)(476003)(446003)(4326008)(11346002)(486006)(478600001)(39060400002)(14454004)(966005)(3846002)(5250100002)(6116002)(305945005)(53936002)(6486002)(186003)(7736002)(6436002)(97736004)(6246003)(5660300001)(68736007)(6512007)(575784001)(6306002)(86362001)(66066001)(8676002)(102836004)(53546011)(229853002)(8936002)(81166006)(83716003)(26005)(81156014)(82746002)(6506007); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4744; H:BYAPR05MB4664.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: Md9PE9AiIVW3HewdGcGG0Wfa24SXd4pfy2SlTvxaP3uTM9RQvbPXDpFe86Ck8Q4Q/WH1PJusjxQ9tePEAxtRetJ1S2bXA6pp9kmuru/mhV3G7DMK718RH5zKvLqWHlsKRLfkRGa3/d3uX7tVJVfBF0ewecUcY4hINkGtCneg+0FBKghkin/AbZan3TIBeRLonO5Cp8bupRWduO/f13ZY8CQi3aNyw1XWwmEb6uoHNeJryNkUeGvf5DTE1/gpjinFxkzmGls8Oc0ds9HXZG0UKVK/7FQsFEnE7cxR++DHmVOObnP+F6z83AD4OAvcMzu4faXK7YurhQ6TEuVgHD8wu8iVra3nal7jjr965YjPkBc=
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <C45AB75DC8812244A878221A210B6F3B@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 6fe33340-5bf0-49d9-2fdc-08d60905f153
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Aug 2018 14:37:24.5769 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4744
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-08-23_05:, , 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=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1807170000 definitions=main-1808230154
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ciVn6jomo0eHKFhB6XrurAZzdfI>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] is "boot image" the right term?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 14:37:36 -0000

Thanks, all.

Let's keep the current "boot image" usage then.

Kent


----- Original Message -----
From: "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
To: "Kent Watsen" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Cc: <netconf@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:57 PM

>
> > On Aug 21, 2018, at 12:49 PM, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Regarding what the zerotouch draft calls it, a person responsible
for JUNOS builds told me that the term "boot image" may not be a good
one; that it means different things to different people and will lead to
confusion.
> >
> > He suggests "software image" or "software package”.
>
> I would think that boot-image is more descriptive than “software
 image” or “software package”. Maybe adding a definition of boot-image
in the terminology section would alleviate any confusion people might
have.
>

I agree.

I am unclear which part of 'boot image' is thought  inappropriate.
'boot' is used in a large number of places in the I-D, by itself, in
bootstrap, BOOTP and so on so the use here of 'boot' seems right.

And what is being loaded is an image, that is something that needs no,
or very little, processing, not like code that needs compiling, linking
or some other processing before it can run.  You load the image, you
reboot and you have a system.  I know of no other word that conveys that
meaning (even if .img files are only loosely related).

That said, I would look again at the wording of
..able to update the boot image..
..includes updating the boot image,..
..raw boot image file ..
since, for me, you take or leave an image, you do not update it and it
is what it is, not raw, cooked or whatever.

Tom Petch

> > Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
> >
> > Kent // contributor
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=7IOUACFtaMOnYNPiMdQQihSqrAcQNBSJpOnZjQaCiVg&s=kEdcCyRuhZTrLgeM4QICztea6Qu-bF5WtuRR95uDj0Q&e=
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani // as contributor.
> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=7IOUACFtaMOnYNPiMdQQihSqrAcQNBSJpOnZjQaCiVg&s=kEdcCyRuhZTrLgeM4QICztea6Qu-bF5WtuRR95uDj0Q&e=
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email