[netconf] Re: UDP default port

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Thu, 17 October 2024 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <010001929c76ccdc-96cedb38-c835-465f-88b9-0a483ebb4ed0-000000@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 83DE6C13739A; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:51:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.903
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.903 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_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wWXXX118kXvX; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a48-94.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-94.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.48.94]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A844C14F6AF; Thu, 17 Oct 2024 14:51:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1729201884; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=bxMXJEpwOMePRh+fUR69HO/haFhpqQxB6prgfhT02zI=; b=FvFrQW8LI/r/1OkbMkZrsonFAR7BoBte+jhlqXK3QeqiZfy2BDLXclEUmMP9E65f V2oQJo0OHjnN1OmINoH5CFvWefqFXOaJVKPOX5wERoiDsc/f7jOvPSpFzGOC/Ey4eul +ap71kysMtcr0IXni5lLIp6kYxOU0Fvm9Z+cWgi8=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <010001929c76ccdc-96cedb38-c835-465f-88b9-0a483ebb4ed0-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_F4EBF2F1-34B8-4AF3-A2C6-15EBE8E0DCED"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3774.400.31\))
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2024 21:51:24 +0000
In-Reply-To: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr>
To: Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
References: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3774.400.31)
Feedback-ID: ::1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2024.10.17-54.240.48.94
Message-ID-Hash: HUI7JS5IZK5TMVRRZJULP5RC6MJ77IKK
X-Message-ID-Hash: HUI7JS5IZK5TMVRRZJULP5RC6MJ77IKK
X-MailFrom: 010001929c76ccdc-96cedb38-c835-465f-88b9-0a483ebb4ed0-000000@amazonses.watsen.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: tsv-art@ietf.org, Pierre Francois <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>, "Thomas. Graf" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: UDP default port
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/fY-gr8tinH4EqXU-VhKaHS8Gwvs>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>

Dear TSV-ART,

Clarification: the question is if a IANA assigned port allocation should be requested.

Note that “UDP-notif” is an effect like Syslog and SNMP Traps, both of which have IANA-assigned port allocations.

“UDP-notif” is a horrible “service” name.  If we proceed with a port-allocation, we might call it something better like “yanglog”  ;)

Kent   // NETCONF chair


> On Oct 17, 2024, at 12:46 PM, Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr> wrote:
> 
> Dear Transport Area,
> 
> The NETCONF WG suggested to contact designated experts for the default UDP port assignment.
> 
> The question is whether UDP-notif (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif/) need to define a default port or not.
> The draft had an early review: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-11-tsvart-early-tuexen-2023-11-15/ where the default port was not raised.
> 
> The current understanding is that:
> -  Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7605#section-7.1 UDP-notif can be configured in both endpoints, and anyway the configuration of the IP address is needed before sending messages.
> - Reading https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6335#section-7.2, given that port allocations are limited ressources, these assignments should be avoided when possible.
> - From discussions on the ML (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9x_w3aI70Cw1oNJP4JH8h181cbI/) so far, current network telemetry protocols do not require a default port.
> 
> So, from these references UDP-notif does not have the requirements for a default port. Is this correct?
> 
> Regards,
> Alex
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- netconf@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to netconf-leave@ietf.org