Subject: RE: I-D Publication Request: draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt

From: "Sharon Chisholm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:34:15 -0400

hi

I have a clarifying question:

The last paragraph of section 2.4 reads

"It is also possible to respond to the concern on the re-use of port
   80.  A NETCONF SOAP service can be offered on any desired port, and
   it is recommended that a new standard port for SOAP over HTTP, or a
   new standard port for NETCONF over SOAP (over HTTP) be defined, as
   requested in the IANA considerations of this document."

Which considering the IANA considerations section says the following

"The IANA will assign TCP ports for NETCONF for SOAP over HTTP and
   SOAP over BEEP."

seems too weak. Is the section in 2.4 left over from before it was
decided we liked specific ports, or did we intend to leave port use as
an exercise to the reader? 

Sharon

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 10:22 PM
To: Bert Wijnen
Cc: Simon Leinen; David Kessens; netconf; [email-masked]
Subject: I-D Publication Request: draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt

[Area] OPS-NM
[WG]   NETCONF
[I-D]  draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt
[Qver] draft-ietf-proto-wgchair-doc-shepherding-05.txt
[Shep] Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>

1.a) Yes, the WG Chairs have reviewed this version of the
     document, and believe it is ready for publication.

1.b) Yes the document has had adequate review.  Several
     WG members have reviewed this document.  

1.c) There are no open issues, and no further review is
     required, for this document.

1.d) There are no concerns with this document at this time.
     It is possible that clarifications will be identified
     as implementation and interoperability experience is
     reported to the WG.  

1.e) There is strong WG consensus for this document.
     It is expected that more complex network applications
     (e.g., 1st or 3rd party commercial applications) will
     use this application mapping for NETCONF.

1.f) No appeals have been threatened against this document.

1.g) There are some minor ID-nits that will be fixed
     before RFC publication. (See ID-nit log below).

1.h) Yes, references are split.
     Yes, there is a reference to an unpublished document,
     namely the NETCONF Configuration Protocol document
     (draft-ietf-netconf-prot-07.txt), but this is also ready
     for publication.

1.j) I-D Submission Summary
    
Technical Summary

   The Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) is applicable to a wide
   range of devices in a variety of environments.  The emergence of Web
   Services gives one such environment, and is presently characterized
   by the use of the Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP).  NETCONF
   finds many benefits in this environment: from the re-use of existing
   standards, to ease of software development, to integration with
   deployed systems.  Herein, we describe SOAP over HTTP and SOAP over
   BEEP bindings for NETCONF.

Working Group Summary
 
   The NETCONF Working Group has consensus to publish this document
   as a Proposed Standard.  

Protocol Quality

   It is likely that there are several implementations of this
   document in various stages of completion at this time.
   Several major equipment vendors have indicated interest in
   supporting this document, and some non-commercial
   implementations are also expected.

----------------

[ID-nit log]

idnits 1.74

tmp/draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt:

tmp/draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt(452):
   Line is too long: the offending characters are 'elope"'
tmp/draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt(464):
   Line is too long: the offending characters are 's:netconf:base:1.0">'

  Checking nits according to http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html:
    Checking conformance with RFC 3978/3979 boilerplate...
  * The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure
    Acknowledgement.

  (Expected a match on the following text:
    "By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
    applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
    have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
    aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.")

    (The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like
    boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate.  After 6 May
2005,
    submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not
    accepted.)

  Checking nits according to
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.txt:
    Nothing found here (but these checks do not cover all of
    1id-guidelines.txt yet).

  Miscellaneous warnings:
    None.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

---

From: Ted Goddard <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 09:51:27 -0600

The idea was that new dedicated ports should be assigned, but their
use is not mandatory.  SOAP/HTTP allows applications to be distinguished
by URL, thereby allowing a variety of applications to coexist on the
same port (so the distinct port may be necessary for administrative
policy, but it's not necessary for the functioning of the protocol).

Perhaps the wording should be changed as follows?

> A NETCONF SOAP service can be offered on any desired port, but
>    a new standard port for SOAP over HTTP, and a
>    new standard port for NETCONF over SOAP (over HTTP) will be defined

Regards,
Ted.