Return-Path: X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB533C1840DB for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:19:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.107 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id byk21-05wE5L for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE21EC169430 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:19:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-718ebb01fd2so364564b3a.2 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:19:02 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks.com; s=google; t=1726849142; x=1727453942; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=ufVl0wB6gf36hHH0qAP9isgcTN4cek+jShEkzmlTDXw=; b=CqVRZjU0acV6+stIVcE/hJeRzYQhN5tf5jzlgSNRAW5gLAHJOF2f5R52ANKofFnhW+ jaMJjS2bubSz6s0IWVfn9lddWFa8hexrNS0T4b2oX02LKfycb7gkAoii291EGeZVk61W PKYIJZZGszSn4HA+HNPzjH5JdznUmCqIwkZVjkT9kllvhcd/OvRS3WsqpZDcByJNrTi3 GLs5HCWqR/ExrqQlTxO6CAqw4FvnZpHg5+CW0ywF1kOtYaxg/ciYBV8PL1qYgcqNzi5e xHQSXSw5Y8bzVvPlvVBSA4afklvKCjj0v6AzrmzqbXVcrM7qtyP/lhwye+BPNozw+Z7I DMuA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1726849142; x=1727453942; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=ufVl0wB6gf36hHH0qAP9isgcTN4cek+jShEkzmlTDXw=; b=tnYNNBrdo0eAOTJkl4JtnUvYkhKsuBk8NwfSWFSGnyRQSXnA4h8vdktoH75uXa3s7f +PPSnxijTw04XvOE+6zVSx/UPIi+Om/gF7dDY/jkq3N7zyDe37m0RvmMi+osZDAtewah sbkDK9Qz2CDRXuYqko3JL2cNMyVoTvDZkGaUov2NSKIcwLMXZzfYyBQp+joxEfeyJBZk MDWI6DiOvaUCihjjH4MXBz01nYAHPjTwQiMQiFVoewEu0arn0fkJq8x40I7SGV2YNGyP VhYsnZOyTBkWrsIZCdhbsZYCQxNQ3x/YoFm4kUF0nqR0a8+X77d07RRyyzWWoRaZvo7j wIMQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCU4hBMFJv8vzWGzcfTTnHXG+Cid5IrlioYtlc6mn0fu00hQBwD5y0GZz9RkGpgyZUStFNQJHRo=@ietf.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Ywow3eZw6GaEkXsJsNOZlbpREFqi8X/QcFSBqYa0oSRswjL/5di oXKXIP7pb5L7MS3yTrAOrYI8m3nkbLpDjnDrfEiDTW5BctlCuv9CBU/UUYy6EEX/EGnx9V0+E80 eVZ6dPaTc363SoQ67SH0espVeEF8mCmpnB9VE3Ie7FkqGYpb7vQM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHZIsRQ15nPY1g4L0sz0blUfrWUFsH+Ub4p5Hk5+rVcHym0G7TLKFKGqQzxFMNQJOZJOX+1npVe5M05EXvWX8Q= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a00:1a8b:b0:710:5d3b:b444 with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-7199c6eceebmr2115842b3a.0.1726849142075; Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:19:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <01000191dc9a8080-119f64d0-f1d7-4549-9789-ba05daa87609-000000@email.amazonses.com> <01000191dcc4509d-0c99ab29-a02e-4a3e-b68b-3b1d58a87f27-000000@email.amazonses.com> <01000191dd5fee26-d7465934-4131-40b1-9549-ff693917b0d6-000000@email.amazonses.com> <01000191fd1bd27b-042e2602-c072-44bf-9342-f38a74086dbb-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0100019202afbee4-44734060-0753-4ea1-b160-11772eda550a-000000@email.amazonses.com> <3dde2b41370c473389221aca2a371c8b@swisscom.com> <010001920ff499e8-e481c2ac-3e6d-4890-a990-f21f7a5d1599-000000@email.amazonses.com> <01000192103195f3-f453294b-3fad-4ad6-ad4c-365c4f6af7e1-000000@email.amazonses.com> In-Reply-To: <01000192103195f3-f453294b-3fad-4ad6-ad4c-365c4f6af7e1-000000@email.amazonses.com> From: Andy Bierman Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 09:18:50 -0700 Message-ID: To: Kent Watsen Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b1e1d606228f6591" Message-ID-Hash: RL5JYTYKPCAEI45HZF2A6DFYP2SSTGJT X-Message-ID-Hash: RL5JYTYKPCAEI45HZF2A6DFYP2SSTGJT X-MailFrom: andy@yumaworks.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netmod.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com, "netconf@ietf.org" , draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server.authors@ietf.org, "netmod@ietf.org" X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4 Precedence: list Subject: =?utf-8?q?=5Bnetmod=5D_Re=3A_=5Bnetconf=5D_Re=3A_Default_statements_on_udp-c?= =?utf-8?q?lient-server_groupings?= List-Id: NETMOD WG list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --000000000000b1e1d606228f6591 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:08=E2=80=AFAM Kent Watsen = wrote: > > Let me clarify, I=E2=80=99m trying to close the "default 0=E2=80=9D state= ment on the > "local-port=E2=80=9D leafs issue. Whether rfc8407bis is updated is a sec= ondary > concern. > > Andy (and others), do you believe this (to never set =E2=80=9Cdefault=E2= =80=9D or > =E2=80=9Cmandatory=E2=80=9D) to be a best-practice for reusable groupings= ? Or more > specifically and better for me, do you think the "default 0=E2=80=9D sta= tement on > the "local-port=E2=80=9D leafs is okay or should be removed (in the > tcl-client-server draft)? > > In this case, default 0 meant use whatever port you want. IMO that is a bad practice and should never be done. In this case, the default is for an application well-known port assignment, so the groupings for the application should set the default port. Kent > > Andy > > > On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:14=E2=80=AFAM, Andy Bierman = wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I do not think any new YANG guidelines need to be added to the already > > completed rfc8407bis. > > This is a design decision based on the intended reuse of the groupings. > > > > Here is a common sense guideline: Document the grouping reuse > limitations > > in the description-stmt. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:02=E2=80=AFAM Kent Watsen > wrote: > > > >> > >> Can folks please chime in on this discussion to help bring it to a > close? > >> > >> I rescinded my AUTH48 =E2=80=9Capproval=E2=80=9D for the tcp-client-se= rver draft pending > >> the outcome of this discussion. > >> > >> PS: I see that Thomas CC-ed NETMOD, which makes sense given a potentia= l > >> update to rfc8407bis. > >> > >> Kent > >> > >> > >> On Sep 18, 2024, at 2:52=E2=80=AFAM, Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com wrote: > >> > >> Dear Kent, Andy and Alex, > >> > >> I think Alex statement > >> > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/5Yaiom0B0lDTeSPOvgNfPIEFvBw= / > , > >> Andy's feedback and guidelines in > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8407#section-4.4 resp. > >> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-15#sec= tion-4.4 > >> makes perfectly sense and I don't see why we should do else. As an > >> author, I suggest to add in section 4 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis > based > >> on the conclusion of this discussion guidelines on reusable YANG > groupings. > >> > >> Best wishes > >> Thomas > >> > >> *From:* Kent Watsen > >> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:12 AM > >> *To:* Andy Bierman > >> *Cc:* netconf@ietf.org; > >> draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server.authors@ietf.org > >> *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server > groupings > >> > >> *Be aware:* This is an external email. > >> > >> Hi Andy, > >> > >> > >> The main purpose for YANG defaults is ease of use. > >> If there are less things to configure then the device is easier to use= . > >> Without a default port then this parameter becomes mandatory to > configure > > --000000000000b1e1d606228f6591 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 9:08=E2=80=AF= AM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@wats= en.net> wrote:

Let me clarify, I=E2=80=99m trying to close the "default 0=E2=80=9D st= atement on the "local-port=E2=80=9D leafs issue.=C2=A0 Whether rfc8407= bis is updated is a secondary concern.=C2=A0

Andy (and others), do you believe this (to never set =E2=80=9Cdefault=E2=80= =9D or =E2=80=9Cmandatory=E2=80=9D) to be a best-practice for reusable grou= pings?=C2=A0 Or more specifically and better for me, do you think the=C2=A0= "default 0=E2=80=9D statement on the "local-port=E2=80=9D leafs = is okay or should be removed (in the tcl-client-server draft)?


In this case, default 0 meant use what= ever port you want.
IMO that is a bad practice and should never b= e done.

In this case, the default is for an applic= ation well-known=C2=A0port assignment, so the
groupings for the a= pplication should set the default port.=C2=A0

Kent


Andy
=C2=A0

> On Sep 20, 2024, at 11:14=E2=80=AFAM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:<= br> >
> Hi,
>
> I do not think any new YANG guidelines need to be added to the already=
> completed rfc8407bis.
> This is a design decision based on the intended reuse of the groupings= .
>
> Here is a common sense guideline:=C2=A0 Document the grouping reuse li= mitations
> in the description-stmt.
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 8:02=E2=80=AFAM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> = wrote:
>
>>
>> Can folks please chime in on this discussion to help bring it to a= close?
>>
>> I rescinded my AUTH48 =E2=80=9Capproval=E2=80=9D for the tcp-clien= t-server draft pending
>> the outcome of this discussion.
>>
>> PS: I see that Thomas CC-ed NETMOD, which makes sense given a pote= ntial
>> update to rfc8407bis.
>>
>> Kent
>>
>>
>> On Sep 18, 2024, at 2:52=E2=80=AFAM, Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com wrote:
>>
>> Dear Kent, Andy and Alex,
>>
>> I think Alex statement
>> https://mailarchi= ve.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/5Yaiom0B0lDTeSPOvgNfPIEFvBw/,
>> Andy's feedback and guidelines in
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/h= tml/rfc8407#section-4.4 resp.
>> https://da= tatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407bis-15#section-4.4=
>> makes perfectly sense and I don't see why we should do else. A= s an
>> author, I suggest to add in section 4 of draft-ietf-netmod-rfc8407= bis based
>> on the conclusion of this discussion guidelines on reusable YANG g= roupings.
>>
>> Best wishes
>> Thomas
>>
>> *From:* Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 18, 2024 3:12 AM
>> *To:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
>> *Cc:* netcon= f@ietf.org;
>> draft-ietf-netconf-udp-client-server.authors@ietf.= org
>> *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Default statements on udp-client-server g= roupings
>>
>> *Be aware:* This is an external email.
>>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>>
>> The main purpose for YANG defaults is ease of use.
>> If there are less things to configure then the device is easier to= use.
>> Without a default port then this parameter becomes mandatory to co= nfigure

--000000000000b1e1d606228f6591--