IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 01:42 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 85D4F128AB0 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:42:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, 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 vxrKJ_Aybh7W for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2F9612422F for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 18:42:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=870; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490233374; x=1491442974; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=MpzGLRRUMmFlmLIox1e1QYXNZL5aDHFokvY2PFxzFhw=; b=FwfeiolTNTsVyeyeU774vnyXUPKInCojpibiCV6VFITa3X5FSBDf39DM b7ddQ4zC7A4gJZSTeGhDX/RVgg9F7q29Xp6weOgrnsRXo6R5gCOyRMyOE NqKzzhFYSc+vI02ANhMXWJ5512x7q5uWA+RpDEvIgKzHZt+JnStMWHM32 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ATAQBBJ9NY/5tdJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBBwEBAQEBg1FhgRGNapFikziCD4IOKoV4AoMqPxgBAgEBAQEBAQFrKIUVAQEBAQIBOjgHEAIBCA4oEDIlAgQBDQ2JdAgOrTqKPAEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBARgFhk6Eb4o5BZxRAZI9kTiTXwEfOIEEWRWHGYlpgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,207,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="397938241"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 23 Mar 2017 01:42:53 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2N1grpR017211 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 23 Mar 2017 01:42:53 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 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:42:52 -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 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 21:42:52 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
CC: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
Thread-Index: AQHSohv/7XgFhfmC527VzIToNP21LaGf0wcQgADu7ICAAA7dgIAADVaAgAEBMQD//8VN4A==
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 01:42:52 +0000
Message-ID: <60a3f9ccb40f4f1a8a4d2a7992b6514b@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <005101d2975f$ae87ac20$0b970460$@ndzh.com> <017d01d29769$0df70b20$29e52160$@gmail.com> <010701d29771$a45f66e0$ed1e34a0$@ndzh.com> <026601d2977f$8d059600$a710c200$@gmail.com> <685B9088-7557-4C6E-9A8F-54C3208DB312@juniper.net> <7217bc23-0e1e-c250-929d-e18c3f0a800f@cisco.com> <07b601d2a197$9865d5b0$c9318110$@gmail.com> <20170321082015.GC35044@elstar.local> <0f17c698ae2645988692ba1eef007d79@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <37950223-F83B-40FD-8CA4-9A790D0A917E@nic.cz> <20170322084751.GA37843@elstar.local> <804C3246-DE92-40CD-9A46-6CC662FE9727@nic.cz> <6802426F-D189-40CD-B3AE-8B007C373528@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <6802426F-D189-40CD-B3AE-8B007C373528@gmail.com>
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: [10.154.160.91]
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/jniEUxMzNS1PH_6-ahErI6lFwpY>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
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, 23 Mar 2017 01:42:56 -0000

> > A more detailed explanation is here (search for SSE):
> >
> > https://www.infoq.com/articles/websocket-and-http2-coexist
> 
> To the question asked by Juergen. Is this reason enough for us to separate
> notifications for RESTCONF to be split from RESTCONF itself?

Notifications have never been delivered over RESTCONF.  RESTCONF is a just a way to signal / establish the relationship so that HTTP/ TCP can be used.

draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif proposes a mechanism which works with HTTP2.  This mechanism could be considered by a future RESTCONF revision should people want to re-open that newly minted RFC.

In either case, we should care about this in our charter. The question is how prescriptive do we want our charter to be in defining the resulting structure of new/potentially adopted drafts.

Eric


> >
> > Lada

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email