Re: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft charter after consensus call

["Reinaldo Penno (repenno)" <[e-mail]>]

I would prefer that RESTconf is done in Netconf since there is where Netconf knowledge resides. Although RESTconf uses HTTP as transport, the protocol contract is almost the same as Netconf.

If we go to another WG, we would need Netconf folks to attend that other group as well. 

We had a similar discussion in Netmod: Should we standardize Yang models for, say, ACLs in Netmod or the Internet area WG? If we go to Internet Area, Netconf/yang folks would need to attend, if we stay in Netmod, router folks would need to attend.



________________________________________
From: Netconf [[e-mail]] on behalf of ietfdbh [[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:41 AM
To: 'Romascanu, Dan (Dan)'; 'Bert Wijnen (IETF)'; 'Netconf'
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft  charter after consensus call

Hi,

I agree with Dan that starting a RESTCONF effort in the same WG could be
destabilizing.
I think it might be better to do this work in a separate WG that works
closely with NETCONF.

David Harrington
[e-mail]
[phone]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Romascanu,
> Dan (Dan)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:18 AM
> To: Bert Wijnen (IETF); Netconf
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft
> charter after consensus call
>
> Hi,
>
> I raised questions in Vancouver about the wisdom of doing RESTCONF in the
> same WG as NETCONF. I still think that RESTCONF is a different protocol,
and
> that doing two protocols - the continuation of the development of NETCONF
> and a new protocol RESTCONF - in the same WG called NETCONF may be
> confusing for people who are not part of this community, and create doubts
> about the status and stability of NETCONF. I acknowledge that I am on the
> rough part of the consensus.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bert
> Wijnen
> > (IETF)
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 12:40 PM
> > To: Netconf
> > Subject: [Netconf] Reminder: Action by Dec 20th 2013 PLEASE: Draft
> > charter after consensus call
> >
> > We've had many emails on our WG mailing list, so maybe this one did
> > escape your attention. Please let us (WG hcairs) know if you have any
> > issues with this draft new WG charter. If we do not hear any by Dec
> > 20th, we will pss it to our AD for approval by th IESG.
> >
> > It is always nice to hear that WG participants do agree too!
> >
> > Bert and Mehmet
> >
> > On 12/11/13 2:56 PM, Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> > > Dear NETCONF WG,
> > > we had two consensus calls ended on December 4, 2013.
> > >
> > >   * Verifing session consensus with the maillist on RFC5539bis new
> > port and YANG module separation
> > >     _http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> > archive/web/netconf/current/msg08445.html_
> > >   * Verifing session consensus on RESTCONF as WG item with the
> > maillist
> > >
> > > _http://www.ietf.org/mail-
> archive/web/netconf/current/msg08444.html_
> > >
> > > The co-chairs think that there was support for the action points and
> > no objections to the consensus from the Vancouver NETCONF session.
> > > We think we can go one step further.The co-chairs agreed to have
> > Reverse SSH as a separate document for the time being.
> > > Below is the relevant part of the draft charter. Please comment by
> > December 20, 2013 EOB PT.
> > > We will then pass it on to our AD for approval by IESG.
> > > Bert & Mehmet
> > > ---------------
> > >    In the current phase of NETCONF's incremental development the
> > workgroup
> > >    will focus on following items:
> > >    1. Develop the call home mechanism for the mandatory SSH binding
> > (Reverse
> > >    SSH) providing a server-initiated session establishment.
> > >    2. Advance NETCONF over TLS to be in-line with NETCONF 1.1 (i.e.,
> > update
> > >    RFC 5539) and add the call home mechanism to provide a server-
> > initiated
> > >    session establishment.
> > >    3. Combine the server configuration data models from Reverse SSH
> > and
> > >    RFC5539bis drafts in a separate YANG module.
> > >    4. Develop a RESTful protocol (RESTCONF) that provides a
> > programmatic
> > >    interface for accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastores
> > >    defined in NETCONF. The two parts concerning RESTCONF protocol over
> > >    HTTP and the YANG patch operation will be prepared in separate
> > drafts.
> > > Goals and Milestones:
> > >    Jan 2014 - Submit initial WG drafts for RESTCONF as WG item
> > >    Apr 2014 - WGLC for RFC5539bis
> > >    Apr 2014 - WGLC for Reverse SSH
> > >    Apr 2014 - WGLC for NETCONF server configuration data model
> > >    May 2014 - Submit Reverse SSH to AD/IESG for consideration as
> > Proposed Standard
> > >    May 2014 - Submit RFC5539bis to AD/IESG for consideration as
> > Proposed Standard
> > >    Jun 2014 - WGLC for RESTCONF
> > >    Aug 2014 - Submit RESTCONF to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed
> > > Standard
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Netconf mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf