Subject: [Netconf] Action before April 1st 2014: WGLC for draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-03

From: Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 17:51:26 +0100

Dear NETCONF participants,

We hereby issue a WG Last Call for raft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-03

The document acn be found at:
    http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh-03

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

---

From: Joe Marcus Clarke <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:11:41 -0400

> the WG mailing lists not later than March 30th 2014 (any timezone).

I have read and reviewed it.  The updated security considerations are 
good, and I would support publication.

Joe

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 08:22:18 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

I have reviewed this document, and my only issues are related to the
generic wording in the title and some other places.  See the mail
thread started by Juergen:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08711.html

/martin

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

---

From: Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 09:04:28 +0100

OK, so we had a suggestion earlier on to make the title

      "Reverse Secure Shell for NETCONF"

Unless anyone objects (before April 1st) we (WG chairs)
will instruct the editor/author to change the title to
the above.

Bert

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 10:00:31 +0100

When we (WG chairs) submit the document to our AD, we must provide a document writeup.
See: https://www.ietf.org/iesg/template/doc-writeup.html
Point 7 wants us to check:

   (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required
       for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been
       filed. If not, explain why?

So can the authors/editors please confirm explicitly?

Also, if anyone else is aware of any IPR, please do file such a disclosure.

Bert and Mehmet

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 16:02:26 +0000

The only IPR related to this work I am aware of is described in the
disclosure previously submitted by Juniper:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2170.  A slide regarding this IPR was
presented and discussed at IETF 88.

Thanks,
Kent

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 17:23:16 +0000

I will submit an updated draft with this title shortly.

Question, both the reverse-SSH and reverse-TLS drafts have "Informative"
references to the netconf-server configuration draft.  Should these be
"Normative" references instead?  - if so, do we have to wait for that
draft to reach Last-Call status?

Thanks,
Kent

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:37:46 +0100 (CET)

> I will submit an updated draft with this title shortly.

Please consider my email
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08743.html as
well.

I think the term "Reverse SSH" is used throughtout the document, and
it might be a good idea to either be explicit and change this to
"Reverse SSH for NETCONF", or at least explain in the terminology
section that "Reverse SSH" means "... for NETCONF".

/martin

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2014 21:04:36 +0000

>http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08743.html as

Will do, thanks for bringing focus to it again.

>section that "Reverse SSH" means "... for NETCONF".

OK, I'll check for consistency too.

Thanks again,
Kent

---

From: Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:20:21 +0100

> I will submit an updated draft with this title shortly.

kent, please wait till we have WG Last Call finished and then you
should do a revision that addresses all comments, not just this one.

Process wise it is easier to do a compare between 2 revisions than
between multiple versions.

Thanks,
Bert

---

From: Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:21:06 +0100

Makes sense in my view.
Consistency is always good I think.

Bert

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 09:39:02 +0100

> draft to reach Last-Call status?

I would have to re-check if "does one need too understand the netconf-server"
draft in order to understand these 2. Does one need to implement the netconf-server
draft in order for reverse-XXX to ve able o work at all?

If the answer is YES, then we probably have to wait. AT least publication as RFC will
have to wait. THat will wait automatically at the RFC-Editor station. But we should
be careful to make sure we then do not make incompatible changes to netconf-server
draft that would require any changes to the reverse-XXX drafts.

Bert