Re: [Netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Wed, 09 January 2019 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <dcrocker@bbiw.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 B248A12DD85; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:48:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=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=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.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 vwBkq1EE6GPb; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (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 52092130FE1; Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:48:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id x09LnWaZ014114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:49:34 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1547070575; bh=573XmOFsb9ZtVeHTvhInM66/fhYAKZFceyOWFnzDJUo=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=h9sSHWoUVedgz5LndVErKaFfY6fIsDGSfxyE5QZn83Uxl12BlVwyod2tle8F8rBVE TIwZ9EDLMKx71es0X23Tb347TuFHPZiUjrjk+5uM17laiWC1xDSfvk4/mn+vf1pLTr P2SCRJUEjq6WjAGYWP5zx6ra3maYZ+fquwvEkqyk=
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>, Alexey Melnikov <aamelnikov@fastmail.fm>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <154390493154.31734.13025584839857369253.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <F526DA60-77EC-45D6-ADE0-B345020A89BF@juniper.net> <20181230003002.GC57547@kduck.kaduk.org> <5DCD6C74-7918-45AB-BEA7-2C1A020B4411@juniper.net> <20190106050255.GJ28515@kduck.kaduk.org> <35A436B3-5D57-4015-A51E-5F9A1E349D31@juniper.net> <DAC627AC-8453-41D2-B95C-BC25746E66C1@juniper.net> <cc5adc78-6751-fabf-03d2-e0c65f8a6c91@bbiw.net> <20190109210622.GH28515@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Message-ID: <f00010d6-4a5a-259a-259f-b70efb70eff5@bbiw.net>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2019 13:48:18 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190109210622.GH28515@kduck.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/gikKVRQFOXnw6ALUjqOA9ZrMaMc>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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 Jan 2019 21:48:35 -0000

On 1/9/2019 1:06 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> I believe your analysis is correct.
>>
>> In the names your draft uses, _tcp is the global scoped name, relevant
>> to attrleaf, while _sztp is subordinate and therefore not relevant to
>> attrleaf.
> That's true for both
> SRV in _sztp._tcp.example.com.
> and
> TXT in <serial number>._sztp._tcp.example.com.
> but it's not clear to me that the "existing" TXT _tcp registration is
> appropriate for our usage here.


I'm pretty sure it is.

 > TXT        | _tcp                | [RFC6763]

The existing entry for TXT/_tcp in the attrleaf registry reserves the 
global use of _tcp and assigned responsibility for it to RFC 6763.

Worrying about reservation of the /global/ scoped names is the limit to 
the scope of attrleaf.

It intentionally punts on any concern for /subordinate/ underscored 
names, which become the responsibility of the specification to which the 
reserved globally-scoped RR/name combination has been assigned.


d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net