IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt

Andy Bierman <biermana@Brocade.com> Sun, 03 October 2010 17:52 UTC

Return-Path: <biermana@Brocade.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 544483A6DF8 for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.129
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.129 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.136, BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KlNDnCP1wQVG for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com [67.231.144.122]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0563A6D80 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:52:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0000542 [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with SMTP id o93HoxoW032748; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:53:11 -0700
Received: from hq1-exedge.brocade.com (hq1-exedge.brocade.com [144.49.140.11]) by mx0a-000f0801.pphosted.com with ESMTP id rp0xagy4b-1 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:53:10 -0700
Received: from HQ1WP-EXHUB02.corp.brocade.com (10.70.38.14) by HQ1WP-EXEDGE01.corp.brocade.com (144.49.140.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.254.0; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:57:09 -0700
Received: from HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::ed42:173e:fe7d:d0a6]) by HQ1WP-EXHUB02.corp.brocade.com ([fe80::e1f4:a4c8:696b:3780%10]) with mapi; Sun, 3 Oct 2010 10:53:10 -0700
From: Andy Bierman <biermana@Brocade.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 10:53:08 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt
Thread-Index: ActjH/vGqS0s6DivQVixsu9Yy6MyQgAA4YZg
Message-ID: <B11AB91666F22D498EEC66410EB3D3C4F412BEC4EA@HQ1-EXCH01.corp.brocade.com>
References: <CB69B162C87647AE97AB749466633F54@BertLaptop> <4C9B3E60.5030000@bwijnen.net> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640106532D@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> <20101003172455.GA16616@elstar.local>
In-Reply-To: <20101003172455.GA16616@elstar.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.0.10011, 1.0.148, 0.0.0000 definitions=2010-10-03_05:2010-10-03, 2010-10-03, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 ipscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx engine=6.0.2-1004200000 definitions=main-1010030113
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Sun, 03 Oct 2010 17:52:19 -0000

Hi,

I agree with Juergen that we should stick with client/server terminology.


Andy


-----Original Message-----
From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Juergen Schoenwaelder
Sent: Sunday, October 03, 2010 10:25 AM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Cc: Netconf
Subject: Re: [Netconf] We NEED RESPONSES: WG Last Call ended for:draft-ietf-netconf-4741bis-04.txt

On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 07:15:52PM +0200, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Section 1.1. Terminology
> 
> I would suggest to bring the terms client/manager/
> application vs. agent/server/device as early as 
> possible into relation. The document mainly avoids 
> the usage of the terms manager and agent though 
> there are some leftovers.
> 
> OLD: 
>    client: A client invokes protocol operations on a server.
> NEW: 
>    client: A client (manager, application) invokes 
>    protocol operations on a server (agent, device).
> 
> OLD: 
>    server: A server executes protocol operations invoked by a client.
> NEW: 
>    server: A server (agent, device) executes protocol 
>    operations invoked by a client (manager, application).

I am against this change. The terminology is client and server; if
there are any leftovers of other terms, we should remove them. There
is a huge difference between a device and a NETCONF server, same for
an application and a NETCONF client.
 
> Section 9. Security Considerations
> 
> I would suggest to add a few sentences for the EOM handling 
> and the possible thread concerning section 3. It would be 
> interesting to recommend a possible reaction if this happens 
> frequently, e.g. to drop the NETCONF session.

4741bis does not have an EOM marker - so how can we discuss it in
the security considerations?

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email