Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Thu, 04 April 2019 18:21 UTC

Return-Path: <01000169e994ab6b-8d0de949-b410-419e-82bc-2fec1d8fa724-000000@amazonses.watsen.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 535B4120427 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
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 Cx7ctQ2IiSyC for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-64.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-64.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74EDF1201A7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Apr 2019 11:21:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1554402028; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=KFOEdvDaCb+CBrD7yL/kHj2lGNRmwU0WkgO43rx8Bxg=; b=B2fQSIWphsXBQB5wVddOoS7z5yUNUerlDG08Mkt+KRv+4OCbw7NUgqM8ZV2gq5/C 87EPwxCMbROJ/iiAeuqxY7pJ4hhU/RHpRz19xS5CiUOCxyv0J1qUjVo2wUvKndQBmaX 0hJeyUhITGzFhbWNMScmogbKW+cq4h7NTRzDvEJY=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <01000169e994ab6b-8d0de949-b410-419e-82bc-2fec1d8fa724-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_1265E9FB-671B-4055-972E-AFF176A56699"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 18:20:28 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20190404.194623.1178346313710501110.mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <20190403.134424.1377386644961079970.mbj@tail-f.com> <01000169e929781e-b0dcb6b3-af41-4f9c-ba52-ac4afb7164d4-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190404164929.fsfga7s4izn7ucx5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20190404.194623.1178346313710501110.mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.04.04-54.240.8.64
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ezf5o9GvCsH_hDPiIX-YQKfnxj8>
Subject: Re: [netconf] ietf crypto types - permanently hidden
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: Thu, 04 Apr 2019 18:21:39 -0000


> On Apr 4, 2019, at 1:46 PM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>; wrote:
> 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 04:23:23PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> We have always said no, but the reasoning is unclear.  What are the
>>> specific objections and is there anyway to alleviate them?
>>> 
>> 
>> If editing of all configuration can be done with a single edit-data
>> (or edit-config) operation, you simplify the world and you enable
>> generic implementations.
>> 
>> Once you build silos of data that can only be manipulated with special
>> purpose operations, you say goodbye to the idea of generic client
>> libraries.
> 
> And you can no longer create all required config in one transaction;
> you have to split it into sending multiple special-purpose actions.
> Perhaps also in a certain order, that you have to figure out somehow,
> since config might have refererences to other partf of the config
> etc.
> 
> You can no longer restore a backup with just a copy-config.
> 
> So I don't think the reasoning is unclear at all.


This is a good start to a list of limitations that could be added to
a description statement.  Let people decide.  In this case, not a 
big deal.

Kent // contributor