IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Thu, 24 May 2018 01:00 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.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 6EE0512D7F7 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 18:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-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=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=juniper.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 48ZelXATnob9 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 18:00:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com [208.84.65.16]) (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 C3BA7124217 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2018 18:00:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0108159.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w4O0svbi007887; Wed, 23 May 2018 18:00:53 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; h=from : to : cc : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=PPS1017; bh=lJI7Z9EJ/O8kbxFR4pD4D1emWDZ6boTN1n30Kz6Ti/4=; b=xiV7AZbNo9tZIYPLg+EiJjQJ/THyXKEH2XC61kB87f+FRCMhvljDBCSl/+TjKLIVN0lq ThQ77ZGe7r8pAZ1zcTtyVeuT8BKvCrKArCeG3TWRNizLGc4LMmT2lVI78J/DPaeOoZZp CIMZhP2AjbllQ0CUDDQkxez70RUi3vn5F85HtxZpy/TJfrGmZIJrx9uH31EW1x43wH+r UW9gWMKGXG2+CKwpM1PyE+i1fnMWTevX583nnTHhAOge6BjJ0YHoHSx6v9pV2TRwdWlV RhWbzhPG95Yu6kDRTbZYEN8HyhU1iM1e9ulzJr5Y59CJI/HslBaOxfvIdyFh0OFpf1aJ cg==
Received: from nam01-bn3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn3nam01lp0177.outbound.protection.outlook.com [216.32.180.177]) by mx0a-00273201.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2j5k8k807x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 May 2018 18:00:53 -0700
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.200.153) by BYAPR05MB4581.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (52.135.204.14) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.797.8; Thu, 24 May 2018 01:00:51 +0000
Received: from BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::95f0:e564:96c8:7f1c]) by BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::95f0:e564:96c8:7f1c%2]) with mapi id 15.20.0797.011; Thu, 24 May 2018 01:00:51 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: a couple zerotouch-21 issues
Thread-Index: AQHT5wJEkxmjjxk4W0WcLhw63ptjzqQ9zyvAgAAVEgA=
Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 01:00:51 +0000
Message-ID: <07B365DE-F703-4FA7-8982-65E0CD902A55@juniper.net>
References: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net> <431423d3582f48f88020d009f7de6bd7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <431423d3582f48f88020d009f7de6bd7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.11]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BYAPR05MB4581; 7:uMsondUQvd4ePZXPMPtfaJokBgOfwGKO8IPfcouX9Tn8/1zo0D7+8C174nu4igUDDSdnj/XVSN2ftHmr4mu+APeC1xvF5KjI2VsCWXouUKtW6V7Y1IvogK1KyUiRtOQ7unvN9ko4G5iZXUj5HFu9MyJSimXubVCtopOhuETI79F90dj5JELPUqCAnueTedJ+K1WzliMSFxQy89LmiP5dT64BzOOpUjFR/XDZ5fBb3r3SQHeFHA9w08PZkCJKVCtk
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(7020095)(4652020)(5600026)(48565401081)(4534165)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603328)(7153060)(7193020); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4581;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BYAPR05MB4581:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BYAPR05MB4581063FA1E4FD21C7EC6A75A56A0@BYAPR05MB4581.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(8211001083)(6040522)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(3002001)(10201501046)(93006095)(93001095)(3231254)(944501410)(52105095)(6055026)(149027)(150027)(6041310)(20161123558120)(20161123564045)(20161123560045)(20161123562045)(201703131423095)(201702281528075)(20161123555045)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(6072148)(201708071742011)(7699016); SRVR:BYAPR05MB4581; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4581;
x-forefront-prvs: 0682FC00E8
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(39860400002)(396003)(39380400002)(346002)(376002)(366004)(189003)(199004)(76176011)(6116002)(3846002)(6512007)(3660700001)(97736004)(6246003)(53936002)(66066001)(3280700002)(99286004)(68736007)(2906002)(86362001)(82746002)(316002)(58126008)(486006)(83716003)(446003)(11346002)(476003)(2616005)(305945005)(7736002)(8936002)(6916009)(6486002)(81156014)(81166006)(229853002)(2900100001)(36756003)(5250100002)(26005)(186003)(102836004)(6436002)(6506007)(478600001)(5660300001)(106356001)(14454004)(8676002)(561944003)(33656002)(4326008)(105586002)(25786009); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BYAPR05MB4581; H:BYAPR05MB4230.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: 6IhhraQzz+AWJYWPep9Sh9C8KAPK6BR3HvdImI1FwXovxzbYg26QUEiWjDw1zjbK/Tu5t2XEarEN4txDRDbtsPRactz2/NQX6CeFBd4CvjP0R5XBpyFnEy93ndGqza7zdwWrAvhtDbdQBu2Eqj2fxt8tiaJj8bJNrcrzwzQ+dxKKkWcvjXmDXPpEfTQisgai
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <76A78034E2BB9B499BEFD9377C7FF666@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Office365-Filtering-Correlation-Id: 24c83833-ee25-4b35-47d3-08d5c111cb5b
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 24c83833-ee25-4b35-47d3-08d5c111cb5b
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 May 2018 01:00:51.2530 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR05MB4581
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-05-23_09:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_spam_notspam policy=outbound_spam score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1805240010
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/hQYxLV2jry04__H6zoFZYbk_wR4>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 24 May 2018 01:00:57 -0000

Hi Eric,

>> 1) should the "zero touch device data model" in Section 8 be normative
>>    or non-normative and, if normative, what should its contents be?
>> 
>> <snip/>
>
> (a), (b), & (e) all seem reasonable to me.  Although if (a) or (b), a fix the single 
> container yang-data question in NETMOD would seem to be needed anyway.  Has that been
> resolved?   If not, per the NETMOD yang-data threads, it doesn't seem like the choice
> in the yang-data is something which is trivial to resolve.  If that is the case, it
> seems like Martin's proposal to do (e) delivers something quickly, which would be helpful.   

The yang-data discussion is regards a different module (ietf-zerotouch-information), I
only mentioned it before by way of saying that there is yet something else unresolved...

Any of the above options are equally quick IMO.

> Note: Also in the model, listing "port" within a device model where a transport
> protocol is known has proven surprisingly controversial.  (e) avoids the potential
> for delays from revisiting that as well.

I am not surprised.  I ran into similar headwinds before.


>> 2) should the "script" typedef codify any signaling mechanism?
>> 
>>
>> <snip/>
>
> Getting away from actions on the range of error status codes is a good idea within
> the description

Indeed, and so I'll take it that this is more support for the plan


> although this might not matter is (e) is chosen above.

Issue #1 above is independent of this issue.  We could choose (e) above but still be
left discussing this issue.  No matter, I just wanted to clarify this for anyone
following along.

> Eric

Kent // as a contributor

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email