Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05.txt

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 04 November 2019 06:16 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.com>
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 B4AC61200A3; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:16:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FdcSmsBX4irq; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:16:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D298F12006E; Sun, 3 Nov 2019 22:16:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2B7DF88685F8A4F80B59; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:16:36 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.49) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:16:35 +0000
Received: from lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:16:35 +0000
Received: from DGGEML424-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.41) by lhreml714-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.65) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:16:35 +0000
Received: from DGGEML531-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.209]) by dggeml424-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.41]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Mon, 4 Nov 2019 14:16:33 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05.txt
Thread-Index: AdWS1nnznsGdid7SSH+YkfJA0hSLjg==
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2019 06:16:32 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA93E58FB@dggeml531-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.31.203]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAA93E58FBdggeml531mbschi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/bd_8dOE3uG3-5FBl3h05rrBc3wU>
Subject: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05.txt
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2019 06:16:43 -0000

Thanks Kent for valuable review, see reply inline below.
发件人: Kent Watsen [mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net]
发送时间: 2019年11月1日 23:24
收件人: netmod@ietf.org
抄送: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netmod] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05.txt


I have reviewed -05 and support it so long as the following comments are considered:

Kent // contributor



==== review ====

Section 1 is missing a NMDA-compliance statement, per
 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8407#section-3.5.


[Qin]: Will add, thanks.

Section 2 says:

   Factory-default content SHALL be specified by one of the following
   means in descending order of precedence

   1.  For the <running>,<candidate> and <startup> datastores as the
       content of the <factory-default> datastore, if it exists;

The (1) sentence doesn't flow from the sentence before.   Maybe you
mean something like:

   1.  Network management protocol (e.g., NETCONF, RESTCONF)
        operations may be used to access the contents  of <factory-default>.

[Qin]:it means Factory-default content may be specified by <factory-default>datastore, if it exists.
I will make this clear in the text. Thanks.

Section 2 says:

   For the server supporting zero touch bootstrapping mechanisms, the
   factory default configuration causes the bootstrapping process to
   execute,e.g.,the server might reset configuration to device's factory
   default configuration,for the version of operating system software it
   is running.

s/the server might reset /the server resets /

[Qin]:Accepted


Section 2 says:
   In addition,the "factory-reset" RPC might also be used
   to trigger some other restoring and resetting tasks such as files
   cleanup, restarting the node or some of the software processes,
   setting some security data/passwords to the default value, removing
   logs, or removing any temporary data (from datastore or elsewhere),
   etc.

s/the "factory-reset" RPC might /the "factory-reset" RPC MAY / ???

[Qin]:Fixed.

Section 3 says:

   this document introduces a new datastore resource named
   'Factory-Default' ...

'Factory-Default' should not be capitalized.

[Qin]:Okay.

Section 3 says:

    The contents of the datastore can be read using NETCONF,
    RESTCONF <get-data> and <get-config> operations.

Which doesn't make sense.  Perhaps:

    The contents of the datastore can be read using NETCONF
     <get-data> and <get-config> operations, and the RESTCONF
    protocol equivalents.

[Qin]:Agree with your proposed change, thanks.


Section 3 says:

      The operation <factory-
      reset> can be used to copy the factory default content to a set of
      read-write configuration datastores and then the content of these
      datastores is propagated automatically to any other read only
      datastores, e.g., <intended> and <operational>.

This is confusing.  I think what you want to say is

      The operation <factory-
      reset> copies the factory default content to <running> and,
      if present, <startup>.

[Qin]:Fixed as you suggested.


Section 4 says:

  import ietf-netconf { prefix nc ; }
  import ietf-datastores { prefix ds; }

These statements are missing "reference" statements.


[Qin]: I prefer to add a paragraph at the beginning of section 4 to discuss which references are used
And which typedef is imported.

Section 4 says:

    description "The read-only datastore contains the configuration that
      will be copied into e.g., the running datastore by the
      factory-reset operation if the target is the running
      datastore.";

which excludes <startup> and confusingly mentions a "target" when
the RPC itself has no parameters.  Perhaps:

    description "The read-only datastore contains the configuration
    that  will be copied into <running> and, if present, <startup>.";

[Qin]:Good point, fixed.


Section 5.

Please make the registrations have single-spaced lines.

[Qin]:Okay.


Section 6.

The last paragraph doesn't make a point.  Perhaps conclude with
something like:

  "This module does not itself set "nacm:default-deny-write" on the
   'factory-reset' RPC, leaving it to applications to configure the
    access control settings."

[Qin]:Based on Andy’s proposal, we should add  "nacm:default-deny-write" on the
   'factory-reset' RPC, I will see how to tweak the text.

Appendix B should have a note to the RFC Stream Editor to
remove it when the draft is published.

[Qin]:okay.

Kent






On Nov 1, 2019, at 11:21 AM, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net<mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net>> wrote:



This begins a two-week Working Group Last Call (WGLC) on draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-05.  The WGLC ends on Nov 15 (two days before the NETMOD 106 session).  Please send your comments to the working group mailing list.

Positive comments, e.g., "I've reviewed this document and believe it is ready for publication", are welcome!  This is useful and important, even from authors.  Objections, concerns, and suggestions are also welcomed at this time.

Thank you,
NETMOD Chairs