Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues

Mahesh Jethanandani <> Sat, 19 May 2018 10:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0E3C12EABD for <>; Sat, 19 May 2018 03:54:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uybaOTsDdE2G for <>; Sat, 19 May 2018 03:54:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1C6012D574 for <>; Sat, 19 May 2018 03:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id f8-v6so19308254wmc.4 for <>; Sat, 19 May 2018 03:54:32 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=content-transfer-encoding:subject:references:from:mime-version :in-reply-to:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=r26u5i1Aiv0mP9S+Lqc8xV86wUdeymm2+PWrVppaySY=; b=ptgJ9JrSrmWLJVPjPVScGZft/IE7U7FUwnRMisRgPLkhxJ7yfz21namcNOo8F094wF SXlfMr+iV4Ei+u8JlhZ4GvL/QjSDRglaDXycr2Am0A5lI50esxrvmr/BNwAnAZ7A/gor fjaqIwvE5LU1coAJ4hjrfEyeZkVkJc9EhzEaXBScdUUCNx0oTrUHjKUmnDTydPx1Vlq7 /mR6uD1/q+EBos6fPaPbEBdY72eZxiweHpSan01E8SJzDI6Jv2VuMKpO21erNshB2NSe lpAPoXXVJ7VqUGblNrTc12AhJBEdzKZagbUNtaQgEhAHQdG9tiLCka5ZfDwJdDoMAUy9 As8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:content-transfer-encoding:subject:references :from:mime-version:in-reply-to:message-id:date:cc:to; bh=r26u5i1Aiv0mP9S+Lqc8xV86wUdeymm2+PWrVppaySY=; b=nHM+JGkLaDT6iKUvBxB0lGYC3xtbcAiPnh4IM5+6pRNdL6d3IwNtkESTQVgMZB19v0 bFJZk3Jkwa38yPL3Nfj9L7SSKy14/8hJjJKuK8sOfxFrSTp+uPn3GNi9BmVe4xIXoBLA u+LrW3/SBNA/Timp3Q4MYIwVoVpqhoIvGm+pG0xGIciC0dNQe6/AOBIXy9qovlmGoJLC VN5zY1mNB6rrZo9jItw3QqxX5M08Ho9+EmuL8/a76c9N46FaaFbZk8x5TmV5IdHu1GRu B8hOXEheM0LZ9u50m2ZOiAjXlnuXC30mrFLhYWfLxupMxfnky4rosr2bzwDndlUPl4SE CLKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwet59DVge2Ex9dY6g+qiXNfNFG91a2T24irK+Hgrerx4vvJ/MtE YdSDqrY95ujqOB5cK4mTup8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AB8JxZruSsZKnRvLgveJJ1XtmB+EsLhN683KqSQrC5I8trMs1fVR2hYsbgU7yjEfzUNzXUyt71Ocxg==
X-Received: by 2002:a50:9164:: with SMTP id f33-v6mr15822885eda.29.1526727271180; Sat, 19 May 2018 03:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id m2-v6sm4850549eda.54.2018. (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 19 May 2018 03:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <> <> <>
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-Id: <>
Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 10:15:12 +0200
Cc: "" <>
To: Kent Watsen <>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (13G36)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 May 2018 10:54:35 -0000

Hi Kent,

> On May 19, 2018, at 3:31 AM, Kent Watsen <> wrote:
> Regarding what to do with the "zero touch device data model" in Section 8:
> a) Everyone agrees on not delaying this draft any longer waiting for the keystore drafts to complete.
> b) There is a difference in opinion as to if we should move Section 8 to the Appendix, or delete it altogether.  We don't have consensus.
> c) There is new information since the above comments were made.  The new information is that the WG will likely adopt the crypto-types and trust-anchors drafts and, thus the dependencies change.  The type "cms" becomes "ct:cms", and the path "/ks:keystore/pinned-certificates/name" becomes " /ta:trust-anchors/pinned-certificates/name".  This changes the equation in that the probability is higher now that this non-normative module will remain valid longer.  Do we still think that it is "high risk" and, even if it is, is it really a problem?  Have we ever published an example module that imported modules that were works-in-progress before?  [I can't think of one, but I don't follow every draft either]
> d) On the flip side, why is having a non-normative example better than no example at all, however evolved or not evolved the current example is?   There is a tradeoff between having something (which is nice) and the risk that it will become invalid (which would be a nuisance).  How nice is nice and how big of a nuisance would it be?  [it seems like nice > nuisance]
> Thoughts?

My personal preference is that an example, in a appendix, which is non-normative, is better than no example.

mj as contributor

> Kent // contributor
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list