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

Kent Watsen <> Tue, 17 September 2019 14:00 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C762120801 for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:00:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 4uZbmr3ZFVpx for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:00:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF52B120059 for <>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 07:00:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1568728830; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=laWz+4bGDPvI9NHNsFdqhhYscUKIWR4Z3hwoo6nZ11g=; b=MI2h3EmcCGHpQ3QTThHr951uNEKUpxlvd9ZsKD/k0zzNtZbIYV2kVqRqPELBjVRG cXuf0PZMhwnzhTVZWi6jJZj7IgZJIWZSICcDc+Abr15wuObQn5gn/30zaC5hiH0xYD3 tLyA3MBZ45lJb/fsAIgbIxl/35HBXjLwoxlIlcwI=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E7D97B06-7D48-48E5-B28B-D4D3A12D2E21"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:00:29 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "" <>
To: Martin Bjorklund <>
References: <> <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.09.17-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00
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: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 14:00:34 -0000

>> 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.