Subject: Re: [Netconf] Action before April 1st 2014: WGLC for: draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-05

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:41:41 +0200

Authors/Editors, where are we with this one?
Do you expect to post a rev 06 that addresses all comments we have received?
Either WGLC comments or other comments? I am not sure that we did get comments
that justify a new rev, I'd like the authors/editors to post their view
on this.

Once that is done, I would like to ask:
- Editors/authors to post which comments have not been addressed and why (if any)
- If we do get a new rev, then
- If possible, editors/authors to post a summary of changes (although that may
   already be in the document, and that is fine too).
- All those that made comments to check if they are OK with the way that
   they have been addressed or responded to.

Bert

On 17/03/14 17:53, Bert Wijnen wrote:
> Dear NETCONF participants,
>
> We hereby issue a WG Last Call for draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-05
>
> The document acn be found at:
>     http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-05
>
> Pls review and send any comments (a comment aka: I read/reviewed it
> and believe it is ready for publication" is also good input) to
> the WG mailing lists not later than March 30th 2014 (any timezone).
>
> Any reports on implementation status or plans to implement are also
> very useful.
>
> Bert and Mehmet
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 11:04:39 +0100

I have read it and reviewed it and do not think that it is ready to
advance.

I think that the basic problem is the question of what goes in what
document;
an SSH one, a TLS one, a server config one or a system mgmt one, as
flagged by the comments of Radek Krejcí.  This is still evolving and,
for me, it is draft-kwatsen-netconf-server that must progress, since it
contains a lot about transport and TLS and should be a normative
reference for this, 5539bis. (I think that it was a mistake to separate
the material that was in this I-D, but that that structure can be made
to work as long as all the documents are treated as a set, with the
information about one topic - e.g. keepalive, server cert validation -
in one place; relational database anyone?).

I note that Kent asks

"Andy, if you're already updating netmod-system-mgmt, can we move the
cert-maps, psk-maps into it?  - and also add the configuration of
system-wide trusted CA and client certs mentioned above?"

Yes, that highlights the problem of document structure we have.  Many
structures can be made to work, but at the moment, I do not think we
have one that does.

I also agree with Radek's comments about terminology, an allied problem.
Since we have TCP clients, TLS clients, NETCONF clients, ditto servers,
then I think that every reference to client and server should be
prefixed by TCP/TLS/NETCONF.  (And, as Martin flagged on
draft-kwatsen-netconf-server, application is another terminological
minefield although this I-D is less affected by that one)

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
To: "Netconf" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2014 5:53 PM
Subject: [Netconf] Action before April 1st 2014: WGLC for:
draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-05

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:30:26 +0000

>structures can be made to work, but at the moment, I do not think we

I'm not sure if it's Andy's call now, so much as the NETMOD WB chairs
(Juergen?) which might explain why Andy didn't reply before.   I am
waiting for this to get settled, as it is partially holding up the update
for draft-ietf-netconf-server-model.

Thanks,
Kent

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:43:22 -0700

> for draft-ietf-netconf-server-model.
The system draft will need to have another WGLC to hopefully
resolve some DISCUSS comments.

I don't know if the WG prefers to finish the system module
or keep adding new features.  I prefer to just address the DISCUSS
comments and publish.  Starting the entire review cycle over again
is a waste of time and energy.

> Kent

Andy

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 16:51:18 +0000

From:  Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
> is a waste of time and energy.

Can we add this to the DISCUSS list?  Regardless, it needs to be
discussed.  Don't you agree that the psk-maps, cert-maps, and the
configuring of system-wide trusted CA and client certs should be in the
draft that claims to support user-authentication?

Thanks,
Kent

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2014 09:58:36 -0700

> draft that claims to support user-authentication?

I was referring to IESG DISCUSS, not WG discuss ;-)
I think the Document Shepherd and IESG need to decide what the WG can
change.

Andy