IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port

Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com Fri, 20 December 2024 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.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 C55BFC17A743; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:22:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=swisscom.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E0cWC08eHzHa; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:21:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.swisscom.com (mailout110.swisscom.com [138.188.166.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6BEAFC157938; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 06:21:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail.swisscom.com; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 15:21:54 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=swisscom.com; s=iscm; t=1734704514; bh=LIeiueKvK/CuZWp12YVJ41dDhM9C516Yyp0qIE+1Gp8=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To; b=c7hqTyUHk2oC2z2ANsqW4RKqKL+71zfkPkvBSNMwcLDzVW134lnUgqcJJ9CzFYisP eNccLQQ3vDbDWaPtKFN8KWqSCeogeJHTO1bQS31smRRQYkwbIpgQ8UaELsy69j4BgP Ep9Xj0IQ/u0y5GyJysXILUwHxrORTrd9gZO98KBzEXYGjP+xcwz64OlFNq32mo8jbW f5TjeYbwBfj0grCrKwpyTx0zsm9fLXBz/s73tjZPoTxPak2IFsd5EHJEKdA6Nc9974 n91sfIHvyOYZxFTgnw+/JB0B9cWxHo0nTKJYNPWgR3X5rL9/8N8eCB9LT8+ZMh5fKr Qg5P81bA3/+jA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="----=_Part_1527434_1977067150.1734704513872"
From: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
To: cabo@tzi.org, rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
Thread-Topic: [netconf] [Tsv-art] UDP default port
Thread-Index: AQHbUt+o24tlxMqm/kWOBaq6xAx5pLLvLfGQ
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:21:51 +0000
Message-ID: <f6bfd92f77634424936e1440f87d0749@swisscom.com>
References: <2EBB4D35-4D0A-4123-AE45-0D0C6B549E48@insa-lyon.fr> <EAEFE72C-2E72-4847-B612-E76617A1C5CC@strayalpha.com> <249963514c32443fb46250e3d7492944@swisscom.com> <1FD4AA1D-0509-45F3-96D4-A2FEE0390B60@strayalpha.com> <F721D255-EFF2-4FCA-812F-9816E25E9949@insa-lyon.fr> <9056d35ba7e24548b36c31bf75a4a6b6@swisscom.com> <98762A51-2207-4193-BB67-8F13CAD9A2C4@strayalpha.com> <b0918cd139444a56bccef2fa233ae828@swisscom.com> <01000193bb4d7eb1-9d40b4a7-3504-4367-b77b-44a5db15d004-000000@email.amazonses.com> <01000193c0e29a1c-9eedbddf-9f9e-4407-80f5-b1a3d776295b-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CH3PR11MB8519A9D21EA690F8F38EC712B53B2@CH3PR11MB8519.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <07E7EB11-2FDE-4CD1-B921-DBC04CA01723@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <07E7EB11-2FDE-4CD1-B921-DBC04CA01723@tzi.org>
Accept-Language: en-US, de-CH
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
msip_labels: MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ActionId=aa309958-c64d-4e21-a736-1323f27fefdd;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_ContentBits=0;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Enabled=true;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Method=Standard;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_Name=C2 Internal;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SetDate=2024-12-20T14:17:05Z;MSIP_Label_2e1fccfb-80ca-4fe1-a574-1516544edb53_SiteId=364e5b87-c1c7-420d-9bee-c35d19b557a1;
x-originating-ip: [138.188.161.184]
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mailer: Totemo_TrustMail_(Notification)
X-Trustmail: processed
Message-ID-Hash: M4Q73WOVPZDIDIUHBQYXGVFJHQOLC2CI
X-Message-ID-Hash: M4Q73WOVPZDIDIUHBQYXGVFJHQOLC2CI
X-MailFrom: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: kent+ietf@watsen.net, touch@strayalpha.com, draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org, tsv-art@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/opHwLc94pWgP6N87zURhg1ZkK48>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>

Dear Carsten,

> E.g., do you really want to run this over IP fragmentation?

No we don't. That’s why segmentation is specified and implemented in all the listed implementations. 

RFC 8085 is a very good document on giving clear guidelines.

Best wishes
Thomas

-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> 
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>; touch@strayalpha.com; draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org; tsv-art@ietf.org; netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] [Tsv-art] UDP default port


Be aware: This is an external email.



On 2024-12-17, at 16:44, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> But ultimately, If the operators are saying that UDP fits their requirements, and the vendors are implementing then what is the stumbling block to publishing this?

Is the applicability statement strong enough?

(I find a weird “proposed protocol”, and a couple SHOULDs that MUST be MUSTs (or RFC 6919 "MUST (BUT WE KNOW YOU WON’T)”.
E.g., do you really want to run this over IP fragmentation?
"It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the proposed mechanism over congestion-sensitive network paths.” — I don’t know what that is supposed to mean, but as far as I know we haven’t invented networks yet that aren’t congestion-sensitive.)

But these are all words, and as several people have noted, this is being implemented, and unless we miss putting in the necessary “we told you so”s, this is fine for use in a limited domain.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.37.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status