Subject: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:05:35 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Network Configuration Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : Using the NETCONF Protocol over Transport Layer Security (TLS)
	Author(s)       : Mohamad Badra
                          Alan Luchuk
                          Juergen Schoenwaelder
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-02.txt
	Pages           : 20
	Date            : 2013-02-21

Abstract:
   The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) provides mechanisms to
   install, manipulate, and delete the configuration of network devices.
   This document describes how to use the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
   protocol to secure NETCONF exchanges.  This document obsoletes RFC
   5539.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-02

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-02

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:14:07 +0000

Hi Juergen, Badra, Alan,

I appreciate the draft you guys submitted. The document looks good and seems to be ready for WGLC. 

> The identities etc. have been essentially copied from the SNMP	
  configuration model. Are we really happy with this reuse by	
  copying? If so, do we keep the SNMP configuration model names or	
  adapt them to the NETCONF context?	

Reuse-by-copying is not satisfying. However, if there is no other proposal I would adapt the configuration model names to NETCONF context (same for tls-fingerprint).

> Shall we add support for call home, i.e., a device, after	
  initiating and establishing a TCP connection and executing the TLS	
  handshake, would switch role and subsequently act as a NETCONF	
  server. (This would likely also include new port numbers.)

If we can provide a solution for the call home issue without causing much effort I would suggest to go for it.

Two small edits:

s/the those/those/
s/and was/was/

Cheers, 
Mehmet 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of ext
> [email-masked]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:06 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-02.txt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf