Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 23 May 2018 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
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 F338E12D7E4 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 ZChR0R6GnAP8 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6A86127010 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 May 2018 13:47:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3832; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1527108468; x=1528318068; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Xv/a/+8fTNENzRgeZaFxzd4sagAJmxDwSpJ4RwVyaEY=; b=Wbvbax7UWbtLWuQL5gaNlq2C29tv0wes471fzrkzwRSER6d80y4aRM+p sQFOs1TIzCUQmbLDgIoXOaeIriZsIHuHOM7A4yPPPEdtcLtGgVHyWtIvz Cb0WgOESfMwNZOcQui2vUeK0WXNlO0uZ1dUkvL33/POZmrFTm+T2Cfjdk g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DZAAC+0gVb/5FdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNEYn0oCotxjGSBeYEPkzeBeAsYC4QDRgKCJyE0GAECAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAmwcDIUoAQEBAwEBATg0CwULAgEIDigQJwslAgQOBQiDHIF3CA+tOIh?= =?us-ascii?q?CgXcFiDaBVD+DZzWDEQEBgTkRhWoCmFoJAo5PgUGDb4dZh1CJCAIREwGBJAE?= =?us-ascii?q?cOIFScBU7gkOLEIU+b4s6gS6BGAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.49,434,1520899200"; d="scan'208";a="119025989"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 May 2018 20:47:47 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w4NKll9k027681 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 23 May 2018 20:47:47 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 23 May 2018 16:47:46 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 23 May 2018 16:47:46 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: a couple zerotouch-21 issues
Thread-Index: AQHT5wJEkxmjjxk4W0WcLhw63ptjzqQ9zyvA
Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:47:45 +0000
Message-ID: <431423d3582f48f88020d009f7de6bd7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.230]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ji4aJnH2WWEGXKn_alwH1fObNFM>
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: Wed, 23 May 2018 20:47:51 -0000

Hi Kent,

> Kent Watsen, May 8, 2018 3:25 PM
> 
> A couple Last Call comments were re-raised off-list and, since the draft is still
> waiting for shepherd write-up, there's an opportunity (according to the
> shepherd/chair) for us to do something if desired.
> Here are the issues:
> 
> 
> 1) should the "zero touch device data model" in Section 8 be normative
>    or non-normative and, if normative, what should its contents be?
> 
>    Please note that a non-normative module allows for the keystore
>    (or maybe trust-anchors now) reference to be informational, so
>    this draft won't blocked in the MISREF state for as long as it
>    takes for those other works to get published.  [ps: this draft
>    also has a normative ref to yang-data-ext, which we thought was
>    going to be a shoo-in, but now seems to be stalled in NETMOD WG]
> 
>    Options:
> 
>      a) leave as is (non-normative)
> 
>      b) just move the section to an Appendix (still non-normative)
> 
>      c) make a tiny normative module, having just the config true
>         leaf "enabled" and its parent container. (normative, but
>         avoids the MISREF, but maybe too simple?)
> 
>      d) make roughly what's there now be normative (this will cause
>         this draft to block on those others works in progress). [we
>         would likely also want to improve it some: perhaps convert
>         the idevid node to a keystore-reference and also perhaps
>         make the whole module config true to support pre-staging]
> 
>      e) remove it (note, this module was added at the very end via
>         a Last Call comment.  It was essentially thrown into the
>         draft as an afterthought.  It has value, but it's limited.)

(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.   

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.

> 2) should the "script" typedef codify any signaling mechanism?
> 
>    Currently, the description statement for "typedef script" on page
>    34 says:
> 
>           No attempt is made to standardize the contents, running
>           context, or programming language of the script, other than
>           that it can emit an exit status code and stderr/sdtout.
> 
>    And then goes on to describe how positive exit status codes means
>    "warning" and negative exit status codes means "error" and how the
>    output can be sent to bootstrap server.
> 
>    The idea is to rewrite this text to just talk about "warnings" and
>    "errors" instead of exit status codes and, likewise, to just
>    talk about "output" instead of "stderr/stdout" specifically.
> 
>    Note: this update seems like common sense to me, and somewhat
>    editorial, so, I'll plan to make this change unless someone
>    specifically objects to it.

Getting away from actions on the range of error status codes is a good idea within the description, although this might not matter is (e) is chosen above.

Eric

> Any thoughts, especially with regards to issue #1?
> 
> 
> Kent // contributor
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf