Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 09 May 2018 10:40 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 194491275FD for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 03:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 c1gT4Y9l6066 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 9 May 2018 03:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FFCE1201F2 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 9 May 2018 03:40:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.61]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE9BB1AE034F; Wed, 9 May 2018 12:40:31 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 09 May 2018 12:40:31 +0200
Message-Id: <20180509.124031.133724992787735358.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kwatsen@juniper.net
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net>
References: <370E9C67-3397-4588-A72C-0526EB405739@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/xQnsvR7TYigQo7jss_SPuDfPoUw>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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, 09 May 2018 10:40:36 -0000
Hi, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote: > > A couple Last Call comments were re-raised off-list and, since the > draft is still waiting for shepherd write-up, there's an opportunity > (according to the shepherd/chair) for us to do something if desired. > Here are the issues: > > > 1) should the "zero touch device data model" in Section 8 be normative > or non-normative and, if normative, what should its contents be? > > Please note that a non-normative module allows for the keystore > (or maybe trust-anchors now) reference to be informational, so > this draft won't blocked in the MISREF state for as long as it > takes for those other works to get published. [ps: this draft > also has a normative ref to yang-data-ext, which we thought was > going to be a shoo-in, but now seems to be stalled in NETMOD WG] > > Options: > > a) leave as is (non-normative) > > b) just move the section to an Appendix (still non-normative) > > c) make a tiny normative module, having just the config true > leaf "enabled" and its parent container. (normative, but > avoids the MISREF, but maybe too simple?) > > d) make roughly what's there now be normative (this will cause > this draft to block on those others works in progress). [we > would likely also want to improve it some: perhaps convert > the idevid node to a keystore-reference and also perhaps > make the whole module config true to support pre-staging] > > e) remove it (note, this module was added at the very end via > a Last Call comment. It was essentially thrown into the > draft as an afterthought. It has value, but it's limited.) If it wasn't for the timing issue, I'd vote for (d); I think that is the proper thing to do. But I really want to see this draft published, so I think it is best to do (e). We can always do (d) in a future bis version, or in a future separate document. > 2) should the "script" typedef codify any signaling mechanism? > > Currently, the description statement for "typedef script" on page > 34 says: > > No attempt is made to standardize the contents, running > context, or programming language of the script, other than > that it can emit an exit status code and stderr/sdtout. > > And then goes on to describe how positive exit status codes means > "warning" and negative exit status codes means "error" and how the > output can be sent to bootstrap server. > > The idea is to rewrite this text to just talk about "warnings" and > "errors" instead of exit status codes and, likewise, to just > talk about "output" instead of "stderr/stdout" specifically. > > Note: this update seems like common sense to me, and somewhat > editorial, so, I'll plan to make this change unless someone > specifically objects to it. I have made this comment in my earlier reviews of this document, so I support this change. Regarding the yang-data reference, I suggest you change the draft to use rc:yang-data, and split the current "zerotouch-information" into two separate rc:yang-data "redirect-information" and "onboarding-information". /martin > > > Any thoughts, especially with regards to issue #1? > > > Kent // contributor > > > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf >
- [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] a couple zerotouch-21 issues Kent Watsen