Re: [netconf] WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server

"Scharf, Michael" <> Wed, 07 April 2021 09:29 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D93473A13BF; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 02:29:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jFJ568Qmdesi; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 02:29:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A793D3A13BE; Wed, 7 Apr 2021 02:29:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E4EB25B12; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:21:27 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1617736887; bh=5IZm8q9fPXkEhSrG98kZHrFde0D/efEmqffbODJsMYY=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=bIGsG3LldP9gc07d6O71wJVFVxGF6OPyUe2L4TTAYIz65eHAGWegwFjWr1/8oltaW 8t7h0xgpZbI+AMYU5tf9dJ5GB5gy/YlkI4oM7bOiBE5kRc1RO6bkFNI5VH3JzeDOFr Qe3B+tjzO9O1/ktPYBrkKF9xJcnl2QaSlUygvSd8=
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.7.1 (20120429) (Debian) at
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1LQv9Gw3ZMtI; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:21:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:21:26 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:21:25 +0200
Received: from ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0]) by ([fe80::aca4:171a:3ee1:57e0%3]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.009; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 21:21:25 +0200
From: "Scharf, Michael" <>
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <>, "" <>
CC: tcpm IETF list <>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server
Thread-Index: AQHXIqD5efHe7Em2SUeq9T5051qlEqqn5VqQ
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2021 19:21:25 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: de-DE, en-US
Content-Language: de-DE
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_14240f263d0c4834b943353d1e9da314hsesslingende_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 09:29:46 -0000

Hi all,

I am a co-author of this I-D, so if something is missing in this I-D, this is by and large my own fault…

Nonetheless, I think I have promised last year to address a comment from Tom Petch posted on the TCPM mailing list (see Unfortunately, this got lost on my own TODO list.

I think Tom has correctly pointed out that this document could have a better (i.e., longer) abstract and introduction in order to explain the purpose and the scope of the I-D. There is already some useful related text in Section 2.1.1, but one or two additional sentences in the abstract and/or introduction would probably make it easier to understand the objective of this YANG model.

This is only an editorial issue that neither affects the actual YANG model nor any of the other related documents. I think this issue can easily be fixed by the authors as a resolution of the WGLC…

Sorry for not having addressed this earlier!

Michael (as author)

PS: As this is about a past comment posted on the TCPM list, I have added TCPM in CC.

From: netconf <> On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 11:31 PM
Subject: [netconf] WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server

We are starting a 2 week WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-tcp-client-server version 09.<>

Please respond on this thread indicating your support or concerns about why this document should/should not be adopted.

We are particularly interested in statement of the form:

- I have reviewed the draft and found no issues.
- I have reviewed the draft and found the following issues …

This WGLC will conclude on Friday, April 9. An IPR call will be issued separately.

Thank you.

Mahesh & Kent (as co-chairs)