Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 09 May 2018 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 627AE127444 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 08:06:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Om_V3TRpWxFk for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 315151242F5 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2018 08:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F9581AE034F; Wed, 9 May 2018 17:05:56 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 17:05:55 +0200
Message-Id: <20180509.170555.1500894260865000231.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kwatsen@juniper.net
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <C4A4B0CC-F297-41E1-96C7-33C52ABE9C4F@juniper.net>
References: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net> <20180509.124031.133724992787735358.mbj@tail-f.com> <C4A4B0CC-F297-41E1-96C7-33C52ABE9C4F@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/lpNT0yIbhQtbMQd5A0yr1X0rI50>
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, 09 May 2018 15:06:00 -0000

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Hi Martin,
> 
> Just cherry-picking on a few comments:
> 
> 
> > If it wasn't for the timing issue, I'd vote for (d); I think that 
> > is the proper thing to do.  
> 
> agreed.
> 
> > But I really want to see this draft
> > published, 
> 
> yes
> 
> > so I think it is best to do (e).  We can always do (d) 
> > in a future bis version, or in a future separate document.
> 
> removing is better than having a non-normative example?  Note that,
> in both cases, (d) can be done in the future...

Yes I think so, since there's a high risk that the modules that the
example use evolve.  For example, currently it uses the keystore
module, which might disappear.

> > Regarding the yang-data reference, I suggest you change the draft
> > to use rc:yang-data, and split the current "zerotouch-information"
> > into two separate rc:yang-data "redirect-information" and
> > "onboarding-information".
> 
> why? will that draft not get published soon enough?  I expect this
> draft will go through a long SecDir review, yang-data-ext should be
> done by then.  I know that some on the netmod list are talking about
> abandoning that draft, but no decision has been made yet.

No but that might happen.

> The zerotouch draft has way too much text invested in the "zerotouch-
> information" artifact being polymorphic nature to seriously consider
> having two unrelated artifacts

I don't think it would require any significant changes to the draft.
You can still use the term "zerotouch-information", and explain that
it means either "redirect-information" or "onboarding-information".

> , when the easier answer is to agree 
> that, in this case, the yang-data does in fact contain "data definition 
> statements that result in exactly one container data node definition".
> We don't even need to change any text, in this document or in RFC 
> 8040, in order to have this agreement.  We would only need `pyang` 
> to stop flagging it as an error.


/martin