Subject: [Netconf] Action Points from the NETCONF session at IETF 78

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:25:40 +0200

Dear NETCONF WG,

below is a summary of the decisions and action points from the NETCONF
session at IETF 78.
Please send your comments to the co-chairs if there is something
missing.

- NETCONF 4741bis: There was a last open issue, namely if there is a
malformed XML document received then session needs to be closed. The
draft will go to WGLC after an update
- With-defaults capability for NETCONF has done WGLC. XSD and YANG
modules are valid. The document will be updated considering the comments
between Bert as a shepherd on 4741bis reference, correction of Andy's
mail address, using the security template for YANG modules. Bert Wijnen
is going to provide the document write-up to Dan after the IETF meeting.

- Using NETCONF Configuration Protocol over SSH: Agreed to have the
username handling implementation-dependent. Margaret Wassermann already
submitted the draft with new text. New WGLC has been started with a
deadline until 8/6. After the WGLC Mehmet will provide the document
write-up to Dan. 

Not chartered items:
- Network Configuration Protocol Access Control Model: WG agreed to
start the work with the available draft. Charter text discussed in the
session and accepted. 
- NETCONF System Monitoring: System YANG module is seen as Netconf
related and WG showed interest to develope the YANG module in Netconf
WG. Some clarifications are needed for the differentiation of the terms
"system" and "netconf server". Chairs will prepare a charter text
proposal.

The charter text for ACM will be merged with the existing charter text
and the new text for the system monitoring draft. After that the charter
proposal will be reviewed on the maillist and by our AD and brought to
IESG review.

- "A Verification Procedure for Configuration Mgmt. within NETCONF" and
"A Transaction Test Module for the NETCONF Verify Operation" WG had
showed already some interest on this work. Bob Cole will further update
the draft and bring it into discussion on the ML early before the next
IETF meeting.

Cheers,
Bert & Mehmet

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:43:15 -0700

> draft will go to WGLC after an update

I do not think this is an issue because there is a framing
mechanism available (EOM in SSH, built-in to BEEP, not sure about TLS
or HTTPS without BEEP).

If the server loses track of the session stream so it can no
longer determine where one XML message ends and another begins,
then the server needs to shut down.  Otherwise a garbage <rpc>
or unknown input results in an <rpc-error> response, not a
server shutdown.

> the draft and bring it into discussion on the ML early before the next

Andy

---

From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:48:51 +0200

> or unknown input results in an <rpc-error> response, not a
So is that not what the above text proposal for 4741bis also states?
We're not too worried about the exact wording, but in the meeting we DID 
agree to add some
text about this in the 4741bis document. You as an editor can put in 
text and it will get
reviewed in WGLC. If you want to vet the text with the WG first, that is 
fine too... but then
pls send proposed text asap.

Bert

> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 02:55:56 -0700

> pls send proposed text asap.

OK -- I will discuss it with Martin and Juergen and we will look
at the text to see exactly where it is not specific about dropping
the session when there are non-recoverable errors.  I have no
objections to that.  I am just saying that garbage XML may be
a recoverable error.

Andy

---

From: "Bert (IETF) Wijnen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 13:06:48 +0200

> objections to that.  I am just saying that garbage XML may be
Great. You may want to inlude Wes as well, he actually broyught up the 
topic iirc.

Bert

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:16:37 +0200

> "system" and "netconf server". Chairs will prepare a charter text

I believe the NETCONF specific notifications fall into the scope of
the NETCONF working group. I am much less sure about a system module.
I suggest to do a netconf-notifications YANG module in the NETCONF
working group (should not take much time) and to move the system
module over to NETMOD so we have all the non NETCONF specific data
models in one place.

I believe our goal should be to declare the core NETCONF protocol done
sometime in 2011 (once the access control model work is done) and then
to shut down the NETCONF WG, moving the focus to data models.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>