[netconf] Re: YANG Groupings for QUIC clients and QUIC servers

[[e-mail]]

Re-,

I think there is room for both. However, I expect the development cycle of the QUIC-specific model to be longer + more coordination will be needed with QUIC WG.

Let's first make sure that aspects that can factorized are adequately designed in existing NETCONF I-Ds. The changes are really straightforward. 

Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : Per Andersson <[e-mail]>
> Envoyé : mardi 2 juillet 2024 16:00
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET <[e-mail]>
> Cc : [e-mail]
> Objet : Re: [netconf] YANG Groupings for QUIC clients and QUIC
> servers
> 
> 
> Dear Med,
> 
> On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 1:44 PM <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> >
> > > -----Message d'origine-----
> > > De : Per Andersson <[e-mail]> Envoyé : mardi 2
> juillet 2024
> > > 15:28 À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed INNOV/NET
> <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc : [e-mail] Objet : Re: [netconf] YANG Groupings
> for QUIC
> > > clients and QUIC servers
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Med,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2024 at 6:43 AM <[e-mail]>
> > > wrote:
> (...)
> > > For instance the following are specific to QUIC, but could be
> > > benefitial for NETCONF, RESTCONF, https-notif, if they opt to
> use
> > > QUIC or HTTP/3 as a transport: supported QUIC version, max
> idle
> > > timeout, initial max data, various flow control parameters,
> max
> > > incoming streams, various other QUIC transport parameters and
> > > possible extensions.
> >
> > [Med] These falls more under the spirit of draft-ietf-tcpm-
> yang-tcp. Other candidate specifics are: PMTU, manage features
> related to DATAGRAM/STREAM, CID control for load-balancing
> purposes, CID renewal policy, multipath support, proxing, etc.
> Not all of these will need to be covered, though.
> 
> Noted.
> 
> 
> > > I think there are enough QUIC specifics to warrant another
> > > client-server document with reusable groupings for
> configuring QUIC
> > > clients and servers, instead of adding them to udp-client-
> server.
> >
> > [Med] I was not suggesting to add QUIC specifics to the udp-
> client-server :-) My proposal was specific to the current
> groupings in -00 which are not specific to QUIC and can be used
> for UDP/DTLS schemes as well.
> 
> I understand. Perhaps there is room (or need) for both?
> 
> 
> --
> Per
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.