Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> >>>> Noteworthily, the HTTP experts additionally said that they would have
> >>>> no issue if the module were called something else
> >>>> (ietf-restful-http-client/server?) as then it wouldn't appear to
> >>>> intending to be an all-encompassing HTTP definition and it would no
> >>>> longer require involvement of the HTTP experts to ensure correctness.
> >>>> 
> >>> 
> >>> Changing the module name to ietf-restful-http-client/server makes any
> >>> reuse of the definitions look back.
> >> 
> >> Can you clarify what you mean by "look back"?
> >> 
> > 
> > The name just looks odd: Do I want to import something that is labeled
> > as a restconf specific grouping? The HTTP people do not want us to
> > define something that may look generic but do we want to define
> > something that looks like a solution just for restconf? Well, perhaps
> > we should just put the -restconf- thing in the name and future will
> > tell us whether people reuse this or attempt to roll their own.
> 
> I see, but note that I wrote "restfull" (not "restconf"), which is
> important since the "https-notif" draft is NOT using RESTCONF (just
> HTTP).
> 
> That said, I don't see why we shouldn't proceed with "http", as that
> is what the protocol layer is called.  At one point the HTTP chairs
> said that, if we wanted to use "http", then we should involve the
> httpbis WG, which makes sense, but shouldn't (in my mind) block an
> adoption.  I suggest that we take the draft to the httpbis list and
> (maybe) present it in the httpbis session.

I think it is quite clear that the WG doesn't want more delays.  So I
think that either we simply don't add this grouping *at this point*,
and define the necessary nodes in the higher-level modules, even
though it is not perfect; or we define the "restful" module with these
groupings, even though that is also perhaps not perfect.


/martin


> A couple days ago I looked for the httpbis list, but couldn't find it.
> Their agenda [1] looks packed, so probably too late for a new request,
> but if the HTTP chairs are reading this and think we could squeeze in
> a quick preso, that would be great, otherwise, pointers to the httpbis
> list would be appreciated.
> 
> [1]
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-httpbis-01.html
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/agenda-106-httpbis-01.html>
> 
> Kent
>