Re: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

>> Do you mean to add to the draft a new section called something like
>> "Authorization" that mimics what's in the SN draft regarding, e.g.,
>> NACM?
> 
> No I mean that when the device generates a notification, NACM needs a
> user name to find the access control rules.  What is the user name
> with this new protocol?

Now I understand.   There isn't a set answer for this yet.   Two approaches:

1) We could claim that it is the "system" that is the publisher (effectively no NACM)
2) We could have an explicit field for the "send as" user.  (default to "system"?)


>> This draft doesn't assume anything about the server (if this is a
>> valid assumption is discussed below) and, presumably, this assumption
>> may be a common.  So maybe ietf-http-client should also define a
>> feature statement for the new "path" leaf, thus servers have an easy
>> way to turn it on.  It would be mandatory false, with the description
>> statement indicating that it is only needed for some protocols.
>> Alternatively, this draft could augment in a "path" leaf into the
>> "http-params" section, or define a new section for just the path.
>> Thoughts?
> 
> I prefer the latter.  I think the 'path' leaf will not be very common
> whe the http-client grouping is used.


Sure, and by "latter", do you mean a) augment in a "path" leaf into the
"http-params" section, or b) define a new section for just the path?



> I'm fine with this being a new "protocol", not RESTCONF.

Okay.



Kent