Re: [Netconf] Trying a consensus on the way forward with Netconf-Light

On 04/16/2012 06:29 AM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> Dear NETCONF WG,
>

a) standards-track

b) NETCONF-Light document; but I prefer the name 'NETCONF for Constrained Devices'

c) new capability; since deviations are not widely implemented (except in yuma and confd)
    they do not really solve the problem; incompatible at layer 8 - political layer

d) the original suggested subset in the -00 draft.
      http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schoenw-netconf-light-00
    The -00 draft was almost done. The -01 draft was not a step forward.


Andy


> after the discussion on the Netconf-Light, we would like to get the
> sense of the WG. The WG at the end needs a consensus to prepare a
> reasonably well scoped new charter.
>
> Current Netconf-Light specification describes a profile of the NETCONF
> protocol and allows devices to announce that they only support a subset
> of the NETCONF protocol operations.
> However, Netconf-Light differs from the Netconf standard and proposes to
> use a new namespace and a reduced set of configuration features with a
> new capability. The specification also discusses TLS as the potential
> mandatory to implement secure transport protocol. 	
>
> With that, there are a few questions to answer to get a clarity on what
> the WG thinks ( questions b) and c) might be possible to combine,
> however please state your opinion separately):
>
> a) Assuming that we need a Netconf-Light document to define diverse
> details, should the Netconf-Light document be a Standard track document
> or an Experimental?
>
> b) Should the minimal set of configuration features used in
> Netconf-Light be defined in the Netconf-Light document or in an
> applicability statement.
> E.g. the Netconf-Light document would define a "minimal CM feature set".
> An applicability statement can define a few "minimal CM feature sets"
> for different purposes.
>
> c) Should the minimal set of configuration features be defined with a
> new capability or based on deviations?
>
> d) Which minimal CM feature set is appropriate for a Netconf-Light for
> constrained devices?
>
>
> Please send your response to the questions above to the Netconf ML, by
> April 26, 2011 EDT EOB.
>
> PS: If anybody wants to start additional discussion on a particular
> topic, please do so with a "new subject".
>
> Thank you.
>
> Mehmet&  Bert
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>