Re: [netconf] time to meet today after 5pm

Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 10 April 2019 00:47 UTC

Return-Path: <mnot@mnot.net>
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 BBB87120142; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=mnot.net header.b=g9vW9n3j; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=BrB7//CX
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 gY88eM92o5gy; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84BED120134; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 17:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F632F3; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:47:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 09 Apr 2019 20:47:46 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mnot.net; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm2; bh=V ch622raV+E9j2emo+l8u7Int9mxMdgvF670pB8nJqM=; b=g9vW9n3j8TDBg6+9H QBinQW3tWDF0YYawwyRMUjQXqA/we4sG3P95i4w3VmyQMxdHeHQrFNjgLgoKlnt+ inXjktiflBF7mC1FNXx235fNenXoE6x5oVat+tfyUI6fRP505UCepZV9NzEqv0CY ja4lbMnONc1QAg/BjGU0WO4Zb5n9Ig3ZDfAslf71daCGlXaU6hscDlouNG6bvX1U BJBF299O9XRQeaE++euLz6KVKVZKvYG1w6zu+sd8RwXRLREOhwDcxGiz1QxZ1oa3 hPIPhhhNNU9iSBJ8XGPujr4sxfumDJB7KpEQ3RWrmVFYm6WmxdKms8/gP2MasxGD ysHBw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=Vch622raV+E9j2emo+l8u7Int9mxMdgvF670pB8nJ qM=; b=BrB7//CX/FDGdvvVyfRVBMVVnvFGsS2uYXzSNEYLZ8aQM92gCF1hEe/dc vJ+TFc8krWYMf9UL+jeTXRcLRlrtTOYnLAyTKU3YuuP1lWyN9rH4WvCHv+UBhyDb G/bVWm0+b2QykggbAo7kvcCb89MA/TuoRXsACb6OIbhrwJk3ORpjnOqOrQZ1lCfs OEIz6TG7eu11w19MYkvomkw8iCBrGxwC2QuG9S8+4BCSLnmy4epVIa+MyM52CLdi jCnlebaAZnQ50e6QrbdFLtV8Ea7fyiESaFtcjV4ebcsheHB+Q+YFwgaXdDSiBzUj 9wl0Q5dtqWLxSR9ZxGGZdMwZTriCg==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:MD2tXIKxeh1sg65b4I99I6MiraBAQMf935cApzRlEY8b3Stf-EEzWA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduuddrudeigdeflecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeforghrkhcu pfhothhtihhnghhhrghmuceomhhnohhtsehmnhhothdrnhgvtheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpe hmnhhothdrnhgvthenucfkphepudeggedrudefiedrudejhedrvdeknecurfgrrhgrmhep mhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmnhhothesmhhnohhtrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivg eptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:MT2tXI4vBo_e2O2m5veqNy5UgxCu16isIUgRPIx_Lfe9opx_s9izQQ> <xmx:MT2tXE3yc_6zoKjQqsm1VPXe0MwcTlsQjp9MqlZFRuTDtMn9NlT9KA> <xmx:MT2tXGfPE7bUKpiHX511c5i61jZcuEEJcgO6ybWHzyr8tbY_QzVhNw> <xmx:MT2tXCpBAbciES-raAUyb3K5c1FSIko2G2_vHNZE8qN3SIcV-2S7kw>
Received: from attitudadjuster.mnot.net (unknown [144.136.175.28]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id ADB7B10392; Tue, 9 Apr 2019 20:47:42 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <B21C3F25-221B-4EE3-A981-D4EE49864C06@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2019 10:47:42 +1000
Cc: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, Patrick McManus <mcmanus@ducksong.com>, "httpbis-chairs@ietf.org" <httpbis-chairs@ietf.org>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1783839F-4A70-46BA-8DC4-C386CE8A07C0@mnot.net>
References: <01000169def07790-5f902f1b-ddce-438b-8e05-d4b7e82818bc-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CAOdDvNoDFoa30tJ8XDz482_38rw8+ajwW4+dSx7s_psoFY7ukQ@mail.gmail.com> <56E946DC-A690-4B1E-8FB5-683473955C5D@gmail.com> <20190404.163346.857364419603319540.mbj@tail-f.com> <CAOdDvNq4bLXtdDD7WdXbH-e14-i_yy50ADm59YtOKW5buaCjOg@mail.gmail.com> <01000169e94f9d0d-7f85f47b-9f92-41a2-94b1-0061bb9bdb3d-000000@email.amazonses.com> <B21C3F25-221B-4EE3-A981-D4EE49864C06@cisco.com>
To: "Charles Eckel (eckelcu)" <eckelcu@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/tgm5c4WivkGvHICj1PnHpYsehxU>
Subject: Re: [netconf] time to meet today after 5pm
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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, 10 Apr 2019 00:47:48 -0000

Charles,

> On 10 Apr 2019, at 5:06 am, Charles Eckel (eckelcu) <eckelcu@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> I would recommend against adding any keepalive mechanism to RESTCONF. Strongly recommending the use of HTTPS when using RESTCONF is fine, but keep in mind that RESTCONF was created, and is viewed in the industry, as a “REST-like” alternative to NETCONF. The tradeoff is functionality built into the protocol vs. complexity of writing an application that uses the protocol. It is trivial to make individual RESTCONF requests but more difficult for an application to implement network transactions using RESTCONF than if using NETCONF. An application developer is free to choose the right protocol for the job. Adding complexity to RESTCONF that make it less REST-like would be a mistake, in my opinion.

What do you mean by "REST-like"?

Cheers,

--
Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/