Re: [netconf] reporting-level enum value

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Tue, 09 April 2019 23:42 UTC

Return-Path: <0100016a047b19fc-e465e8b2-4858-4971-8350-d548c649dd12-000000@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 25007120491 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:42:21 -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 4VXlKHtyhdeO for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:42:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-33.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-33.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 15BF7120483 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 16:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1554853337; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=FnGG1al/max9heUckhhYnanh7cAfWOwNhiIOI4Jp42Q=; b=cUtKt3M1XFsaKnpTCBOIooYnuZy2ClL6hu520GSk9F4KF/vjp+hfx65n8Pf53UvL pbYJDNUKqu5Kk/GE58gJaLOdvJXRPtKPiaZkfmminRo1m4yVkTHuZLBIYBtLGNN4Kp2 z/m6S+ROGEHm2VjWULpO1msIqIz6WRoz8d0Hz4EA=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <0100016a047b19fc-e465e8b2-4858-4971-8350-d548c649dd12-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_B084A063-D274-4326-ABDA-1CF24244FE21"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Date: Tue, 9 Apr 2019 23:42:17 +0000
In-Reply-To: <025910F1-FD33-499C-A6E2-F6816FAB5467@cisco.com>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
References: <01000169f287fa3f-076e9a88-770f-41b1-9ffe-034061e6eedb-000000@email.amazonses.com> <025910F1-FD33-499C-A6E2-F6816FAB5467@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.04.09-54.240.8.33
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/gq5fV3qSWUtVbk1HkqtHPkZm6M4>
Subject: Re: [netconf] reporting-level enum value
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: Tue, 09 Apr 2019 23:42:21 -0000

Thanks Charles.  Any objections?

Kent // contributor 


> On Apr 9, 2019, at 3:18 PM, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> “minimal” seems appropriate to me.
>  
> Cheers,
> Charles
>  
> From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org>> on behalf of Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net <mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net>>
> Date: Saturday, April 6, 2019 at 2:03 PM
> To: "netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>" <netconf@ietf.org <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>>
> Subject: [netconf] reporting-level enum value
>  
>  
> The zerotouch draft is in AUTH48 and one thing came up...
>  
> In Section 7.3, in the RPC-reply for the `get-boostrapping-data` RPC, there is a leaf called `reporting-level`:
> 
>          "Specifies the reporting level for progress reports the
>            bootstrap server would like to receive when processing
>            onboarding information. 
>  
> With current values "standard" and "verbose".
>  
> The question to the WG is, would it be in anyway better to NOT use the word "standard"?
> Perhaps it should be "minimal", “default”, “mandatory”, or “required” instead?
> Thoughts?
>  
> Kent