Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05

Kent Watsen <> Tue, 05 November 2019 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D3F12006B; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:45:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gNg6d2o6OcnK; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:45:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D0012004D; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 18:45:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1572921940; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=2hXXR/asJQHLDAujVE2w9u2s14ro9q1Oiu7FEvMOv/Q=; b=edNJl02FnStrVMzll0loQoei1vE/BSKY5gwqmYFq7dy7jVe4oqvV122XTqSw8oTN c0+jzqRUYKf9nRYkCJ/tV4BgvkTmQcColsL4ZtYwsSD50jH2A0l2PPkqel7skTJgPAy 0iqoNSdAKxp0oBkK9Gq2ESfmU2nK1gbnFGmVGeYQ=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_EF4A5BD3-59CA-46CE-8093-F97EBD280CFB"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 02:45:40 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Qin Wu <>, "" <>,
To: Martin Bjorklund <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.11.05-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WG Last Call: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2019 02:45:43 -0000

Qin, Martin,

>>>  But what does this actually mean?
>>> [Qin]: It means the key word zero-touch comes from RFC8572.
>> I get that part.  I was wondering about the meaning of the sentence.
>> How can "reset" be used "during initial zero-touch configuration"?
>> [Qin]: I think "reset" can be used at the beginning of session setup or in the middle of session when the existing configuration
>> Has fatal error.
>> Maybe change it into "before initial zero-touch configuration"?
> I don't think this is correct; noone will invoke "factory-reset"
> *before* the initial ztp -- rather, the factory default config will
> contain config to enable ztp (see e.g. section A.1 in RFC 8572).
> Perhaps simply remove this sentence?
> Kent, do you have an opinion?

For devices supporting ZTP, as you say, no one will invoke "factory-reset" before the initial ZTP.   This RPC can only, at best, reenable ZTP as part of the reset operation.   This seems obvious to me (e.g., section A.1), but Joe felt that it would be helpful to call it out.  My only role in this was to craft the text that said it correctly.  As for if the sentence is better in or out, I hold no strong opinion, but perceive two WG members having opposite opinions.

Kent // contributor