Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-04.txt

Kent Watsen <> Mon, 28 October 2019 15:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4CFE120113 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:54:45 -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 C1v8VQ6fNEHB for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:54:44 -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 B5644120098 for <>; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 08:54:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1572278083; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=LzUp1L6ECw6zOzymIkIHjgY6IrDD+fK/mZzfGW8xebQ=; b=LKVMPQaX2m9H96Oq1JecrUdeHnR9jgrjhbVSiesRK85vCTCifM5JOTE3eeo0+rVn twrj6MOUG2oXwnwDab+QTUo1UJ1vfthVn+ZBieUgTxYfNNirrF5Ue1AGSTPBMkOTNIr 0hbMu+kbhIZG4tKFUlxvxBeTnCcmFJXBzePXF2Fo=
From: Kent Watsen <>
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C4318FDB-E9D1-48CA-B6AF-515E35741896"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:54:43 +0000
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: Qin Wu <>, "" <>
To: "Joe Clarke (jclarke)" <>
References: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2019.10.28-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netmod] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-netmod-factory-default-04.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 15:54:46 -0000

Regarding this point:

> First, I remember we talked about a reboot operation I think at the last IETF(?).  It was said that perhaps a reboot would happen as part of this RPC because once the <running> datastore is reset to factory-default, the device would not be reachable.  I don’t know where we landed on that.  However, I think some attention should be paid to things like zero-touch provisioning.  If I reset to factory-default, I would expect the device to undergo any out-of-the-box bootstrapping.  Perhaps adding some text that after the RPC is executed, the device SHOULD perform any initial bootstrapping processes?

Perhaps the draft could say something like:

"...resets the configuration to the device's factory default configuration, for the OS version it is running.  For devices supporting zero touch bootstrapping mechanisms, the factory default configuration causes the bootstrapping process to execute."

Kent // contributor