Re: [netconf] Adoption poll for tcp-client-server and http-client-server draft

Hi Nick,

You will notice in the latest tcp-client-server update [1] that there is now a "presence" statement on the "keepalives" containers.  Do you think any more "mandatory true" statements are needed?

I don't understand your last comment or, rather, I think it is the case already that the TCP keepalives configuration is outside the SSH/TLS configuration.  Note the "keepalives" configuration inside the SSH/TLS configuration is actually to separately configure keepalives at the SSH/TLS levels - makes sense?

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netconf-tcp-client-server-01 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netconf-tcp-client-server-01>

Kent // contributor

> On Mar 26, 2019, at 10:30 AM, NICK HANCOCK <nick.hancock@adtran.com> wrote:
> 
> I support this work to provide the ability to configure TCP keepalives for NETCONF connections as we need this support in our implementations and support the adoption of these drafts.
>  
> I also have the following comments on the actual YANG implementation and usage within the client/server model.
>  
> The leafs within the “tcp-keepalives” container are optional. Given that a server supports the feature “tcp-client-keepalives”, TCP keepalives would be disabled per default through missing configuration, which I believe is desirable behavior. However, there is currently nothing to prevent a client configuring, say, just ‘max-probes’ only resulting in an incomplete but valid configuration. Would not adding a ‘presence’ statement to the container “tcp-keepalives” and making its child nodes mandatory or adding default values be a more practical solution that defines a predictable behavior?
>  
> Since TCP is a layer below the security layer and independent of the choice of security protocol, I was wondering what the motivation was for locating the TCP keepalives configuration within the SSH/TLS configuration. Wouldn’t this be better located as a sibling nod to the choice “transport”?
>  
> Nick
>  
>  <>From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani
> Sent: 26 March 2019 12:17
> To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [netconf] Adoption poll for tcp-client-server and http-client-server draft
>  
> This is the start of a two week poll for WG adoption of the two drafts:
> 
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netconf-tcp-client-server-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netconf-tcp-client-server-00>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-00>
> 
> Please indicate your support for or any objections you might have for adopting the two drafts as WG items by April 9.
> 
> Mahesh Jethanandani
> mjethanandani@gmail.com <mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>_______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>