Re: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00"
Qin Wu <email@example.com> Wed, 11 September 2019 01:55 UTC
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB08120273 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([18.104.22.168]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8Lvq-U--CgvI for <email@example.com>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [22.214.171.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CC9D1200E0 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Tue, 10 Sep 2019 18:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3B049D860075F181FAD8; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:14 +0100 (IST)
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by LHREML713-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.36) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:13 +0100
Received: from lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:13 +0100
Received: from DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.33) by lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:55:13 +0100
Received: from DGGEML511-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.20]) by DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:55:06 +0800
From: Qin Wu <email@example.com>
To: Warren Kumari <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ignas Bagdonas <email@example.com>, Alissa Cooper <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00"
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:55:06 +0000
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Subject: Re: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00"
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 01:55:19 -0000
Agree with Warren's suggestion. I also believe this work can be progressed in parallel with client server model draft, at least TCP client server , TLS client server model draft. The model defined in these documents can be further reused in NETCONF client server model draft and RESTCONF client server model draft. What is tricky is where does ietf-http-client come from? It seems to me it come from draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-03, which is still an individual draft. I also believe Martin's comments should be addressed. -Qin -----邮件原件----- 发件人: netconf [mailto:email@example.com] 代表 Warren Kumari 发送时间: 2019年9月11日 5:05 收件人: firstname.lastname@example.org; Ignas Bagdonas <email@example.com>om>; Alissa Cooper <firstname.lastname@example.org> 主题: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00" Hi there all, As both Netconf chairs are also authors of draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif, they felt that it was inappropriate for them to also call consensus on this adoptionI'd suggest that the chair deputize a WG participant to make and needed consensus calls which may , and so have asked me to do so. I've reviewed the meeting video, the minutes, and also the call for adoption thread (I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list, and so I read it on the archives, and cannot reply to the original thread). I view there being consensus for adoption of this document -- authors, please resubmit as draft-ietf-netconf-... I'd also suggest that the chair deputize a WG participant to make and needed consensus calls which may come up during progression of the document. As noted by Kent in https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ndUBag_lngpt5nyBVol-CylPQpE, Martin made a number of good points -- not sure if you'd like to address there before or after submitting the WG version of the document. There was also a view that the WG should be focusing on getting the client-server work done -- this seems like a fine idea, but I think that, if the authors have time, they can work on this in parallel... Thank you all, W -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ netconf mailing list email@example.com https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
- [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft-mah… Warren Kumari
- Re: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft… Qin Wu
- Re: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft… Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] Results of "Adoption Call for draft… Balázs Lengyel