Re: [Netconf] WG Last Call Comments ondraft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-03.txt

[t.petch <[e-mail]>]

Kent

I attach the updated XML.  I have replaced 'Reverse SSH' with 'call
home' or, where it seems necessary, 'NETCONF over SSH (call home),
following the style of 5539-bis.  xml2rfc says it is ok.  I update the
version to -05 and added a change log.  I think it would be wrong to
change the draft I-D name - yes, that name persists for ever in the data
tracker even after the RFC is created, but I think that the change of
name creates a discontinuity in the tracker that is a worse result.  I
think it would be better if you submitted this I-D - continuity again.

I would like to revise the first sentence of the Introduction/Abstract
(as I suggested last November) but including 'call home', but don't see
consensus on that yet so I have left that.

I will get back to you next week ( a busy one for me) on the other
points.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" <[e-mail]>
To: "t.petch" <[e-mail]>; "Juergen Schoenwaelder"
<[e-mail]>
Cc: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[e-mail]>; <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 5:06 PM

Hi Tom,


>But as and when parts of ssh-server relate to the client, well then
>inbound and outbound are less clear, so I think that the use of inbound
>and outbound is an issue that needs more thought.

How about "listen" and "call-home", mimicing the names used for the
configuration nodes?




>And inbound is quite widespread in ssh-server, appearing in sections
>2.4, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4.  The usage is consistent within
>ssh-server but at odds with what I see as a set of documents, 5539-bis,
>reverse-ssh, ssh-server
>(and, perhaps, system-mgmt).  I read them all before making any
comments
>and it is the inconsistency between them that is driving me now.
>
>And, as I said before, I do see 5539-bis as the simplest, the clearest
>and so the one to move reverse-ssh and ssh-server towards.
>
>Which gives you the work to do, which is why I offered to help.


There looks to be WG consensus to do this now so, yes, please make this
change.  I suppose if we're removing "reverse" from the draft, then we
should rename it too - how about ietf-netconf-ssh-call-home?

Thanks,
Kent