IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Fri, 20 December 2024 13:04 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
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 010DEC1D4CD3; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:04:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.908
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.908 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 7EDLD_x8iCFM; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:04:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de [134.102.50.21]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A0DADC151087; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:04:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.217.145] (p548dc3ec.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.141.195.236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.zfn.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4YF70G2kmkzDChf; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:03:58 +0100 (CET)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.7\))
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
In-Reply-To: <CH3PR11MB8519A9D21EA690F8F38EC712B53B2@CH3PR11MB8519.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 14:03:57 +0100
X-Mao-Original-Outgoing-Id: 756392637.694452-b28d83bed848c64649132dfc55c5472f
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <07E7EB11-2FDE-4CD1-B921-DBC04CA01723@tzi.org>
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>
To: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.7)
Message-ID-Hash: HCKM5JPKOYWGPDUBIIBR32T2D3AWZG3Y
X-Message-ID-Hash: HCKM5JPKOYWGPDUBIIBR32T2D3AWZG3Y
X-MailFrom: cabo@tzi.org
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 Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "touch@strayalpha.com" <touch@strayalpha.com>, "draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org>, "tsv-art@ietf.org" <tsv-art@ietf.org>, "netconf@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/piw1sR_iR8NCYjEiGOw0MMseR0w>
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>

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

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status