Re: [tcpm] [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06.txt> (A YANG Model for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Configuration) to Proposed Standard

Hi Tom,

At least the command "netstat -n" in Windows 10 seems to display the zone for (link-local) IPv6 addresses. At least I have seen this on my own PC.

So I guess we need a strong reason not to allow a zone in the YANG module (obviously it is optional).

My suggestion is that we keep the current model as is - unless somebody strongly disagrees with allowing a zone.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tom petch <daedulus@btconnect.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2022 5:38 PM
> To: Scharf, Michael <Michael.Scharf@hs-esslingen.de>; t petch
> <ietfa@btconnect.com>; last-call@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org; tcpm@ietf.org; tcpm-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Last-Call] [tcpm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06.txt> (A
> YANG Model for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Configuration) to
> Proposed Standard
> 
> On 17/06/2022 10:01, Scharf, Michael wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Many thanks for again reading this draft. These are all good catches.
> >
> > We have addressed all points noted below in the new version -07, except
> for one comment:
> >
> > We have kept in -07 the IP address modeling that includes the zone. My
> own understand so far is that the models with the zone are the default in
> many YANG models. As a result, we probably need a reason not to allow a
> zone in draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp. Allowing it seems a more conservative
> approach, and therefore we have not changed this in -07. Yet, further
> feedback on the use of the zone would really be welcome.
> 
> Well yes.   There was an interesting discussion on the LSR and later
> NETMOD list recently where authors, who had not understood that
> including the zone was what you got, sought to change RFC6991-bis to be
> the other way round on the grounds that that was what everyone expected
> and wanted.  I think that that idea has died down but suspect that many
> wished that they had specified '-no-zone' in their modules.
> 
> I raised to ensure that you were aware of what you are doing since some
> others were not:-(
> 
> zones are troublesome in other regards as crops up on the 6man list in
> that there is no agreed way to put them in a URI which Brian Carpenter
> has been pursuing and sees a way forward now that IE 10 is out of
> support (yes, it is all rather weird - not one of IPv6's finest hours).
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> > Version -07 tries to address also other IETF last call reviews and thus
> includes several changes. Please have a look at the new version
> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07) or the
> diff (https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-07) and let
> us know if more is needed.
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: t petch <ietfa@btconnect.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2022 11:00 AM
> >> To: last-call@ietf.org
> >> Cc: draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp@ietf.org; tcpm@ietf.org; tcpm-
> chairs@ietf.org
> >> Subject: Re: [tcpm] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06.txt> (A YANG
> >> Model for Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Configuration) to Proposed
> >> Standard
> >>
> >> On 16/02/2022 22:42, The IESG wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The IESG has received a request from the TCP Maintenance and Minor
> >> Extensions
> >>> WG (tcpm) to consider the following document: - 'A YANG Model for
> >>> Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) Configuration'
> >>
> >> Some stray thoughts.
> >>
> >> All the IP address objects use the format that includes the zone; is
> >> this intended?
> >>
> >> You mention the i2nsf-capability-data-model as an example of modelling
> >> TCP.  i2nsf-nsf-facing could be another.
> >>
> >> The TLP in the YANG module is out of date (like the Copyright date).
> >>
> >> The example uses port 80 which is traditionally insecure.  A secure port
> >> might set a better example.
> >>
> >> Tom Petch
> >>
> >>>     <draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
> >>>
> >>> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final
> >>> comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> >>> last-call@ietf.org mailing lists by 2022-03-02. Exceptionally, comments
> may
> >>> be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning
> >>> of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> >>>
> >>> Abstract
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>      This document specifies a minimal YANG model for TCP on devices
> that
> >>>      are configured by network management protocols.  The YANG model
> >>>      defines a container for all TCP connections and groupings of
> >>>      authentication parameters that can be imported and used in TCP
> >>>      implementations or by other models that need to configure TCP
> >>>      parameters.  The model also includes basic TCP statistics.  The model
> >>>      is compliant with Network Management Datastore Architecture
> (NMDA)
> >>>      (RFC 8342).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The file can be obtained via
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tcpm-yang-tcp/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> tcpm mailing list
> >>> tcpm@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm
> >>> .
> >>>
> >