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

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Thu, 07 November 2019 19:51 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 C66E4120255; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:51:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 ct-izbpNf2eh; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEAF71200E0; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 11:50:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-4-44.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [158.174.4.44]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AC0921AE0388; Thu, 7 Nov 2019 20:50:57 +0100 (CET)
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 20:50:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20191107.205057.1889050828820990344.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kent+ietf@watsen.net
Cc: J.Schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, httpbis-chairs@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100016e46e53383-ec073c86-f9d4-4358-9d78-b337f9cd9a58-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <0100016e466ae626-e9821117-8286-4f26-bc91-284d7dcaa453-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20191107153342.gqtgyseqyvsppcul@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <0100016e46e53383-ec073c86-f9d4-4358-9d78-b337f9cd9a58-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/xkGpdRzCL73e1HihHcCzrEyvpbc>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption call for draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server-04
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: Thu, 07 Nov 2019 19:51:02 -0000

Hi,

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> 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
>