Subject: [Netconf] Draft NETCONF Session Agenda for IETF 80

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:29:22 +0100

Dear NETCONF WG,

below is a draft agenda for the NETCONF session in Prague.
Please send us your comments/requests by March 16, 2011.

Mehmet & Bert

(DRAFT) Agenda for NETCONF WG Session
-------------------------------------

IETF 80 - Prague, Czech Republic
March 27 - April 1, 2011

THURSDAY, March 31, 2011
1300-1500 Afternoon Session I
Room Barcelona

   WG Chairs:
   Bert Wijnen <[email-masked]>
   Mehmet Ersue <[email-masked]>

   Scribes (IF no_volunteers THEN wait_forever) 
   Agenda bashing (2 minutes) 
   WG status review (5 minutes) 

   Chartered items:

      1. Status of 4741bis and 4742bis (5 minutes - M. Bjorklund/M.
Wassermann)
      2. Network Configuration Protocol Access Control Model - A.
Bierman (40 minutes) 
         http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-access-control 
      3. NETCONF System Notifications - A. Bierman (30 minutes) 
         draft-ietf-netconf-system-notification 
 
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-system-notification 

   Open mike:
      Possible topics:
      - (if necessary) Discussion on NETCONF username
      - Improved NACM rule specification, features/requirements M.
Bjorklund/A. Bierman

      Any other topics to discuss? 

   AOB

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:08:24 -0800

I will be posting an update (-03) to the netconf system notifications
draft, based on comments from Martin.

http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-netconf-system-notifications-02.txt

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 9:29 AM
To: Netconf
Subject: [Netconf] Draft NETCONF Session Agenda for IETF 80

Dear NETCONF WG,

Mehmet & Bert

THURSDAY, March 31, 2011

   WG Chairs:

   Chartered items:

   Open mike:
      Possible topics:

   AOB

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

---

From: Tomoyuki Iijima <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 17:10:22 +0900

Dear WG chairs,

 >       Any other topics to discuss?

I've submitted following draft. I'd appreciate it if you could put this 
topic on the agenda if time is available. I'm considering sending 
Netconf Notification over WebSocket(Bi-directional HTTP). I suppose this 
topic hasn't been discussed yet...

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-iijima-netconf-websocket-ps-00

Kind regards,

Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich) wrote:
> .

-- 
Tomoyuki Iijima
Hitachi, Ltd., Central Research Laboratory
TEL: 045-860-2156 (ext. 874-6059)
E-mail: [email-masked]

---

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 13:07:39 +0100

Dear Tomoyuki,

the co-chairs would like to see the WG interest first 
before allocating scarce session time.

So, please summarize the main message of your draft in a 
mail and initiate some discussion on the NETCONF maillist.

You can also answer initial questions/comments from my 
side:
- You copied a rather old figure from RFC5277. You should
use the figure of and refer to 4741bis.
- Why do you think an additional transport binding is 
necessary? BEEP is also bi-directional.
- NETCONF exchanges XML documents with RPC commands. 
I am missing some examples and explanation how you do 
this on top of Websocket transport.

Mehmet 

> From: ext Tomoyuki Iijima [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:10 AM
> To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)
> Cc: Netconf
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft NETCONF Session Agenda for IETF 80
> 
> Dear WG chairs,
> 
>  >    Open mike:
>  >       Possible topics:

---

From: Tomoyuki Iijima <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:57:53 +0900

Dear Mehmet,

 > mail and initiate some discussion on the NETCONF maillist.

Sure, I've pasted below the abstract of the I-D.

    This memo proposes transporting NETCONF Notification over WebSocket
    protocol[I-D.ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol].  RFC5277[RFC5277]
    specifies that NETCONF Notification must be sent over SSH, BEEP, SSL
    and console from an NETCONF server to NETCONF clients.  When NETCONF
    Notification was defined, this transport mapping was a reasonable
    decision.  Bi-directional capability is necessary for transporting
    NETCONF Notification.  But at present, WebSocket protocol, which is
    based on HTTP and has a bi-directional capability, is available.
    This memo describes the way in which NETCONF Notification is sent
    over WebSocket protocol.

 > use the figure of and refer to 4741bis.

I understand.

 > necessary? BEEP is also bi-directional.

Yes, according to RFC4743, when exchanging NETCONF messages over 
SOAP/HTTP, a network device can send NETCONF Notification over 
SOAP/BEEP. To the best of my knowledge, however, BEEP is not widely 
adopted. And, preparing both HTTP and BEEP for NETCONF/SOAP is onerous. 
In contrast, WebSocket is expected to be used widely and is an extension 
of HTTP.

 > this on top of Websocket transport.

WebSocket is under development. So there might be some wiggle room. If 
specification of the current WebSocket I-D is unchanged, XML documents 
with RPC commands such as <create-subscription> and <notification> 
written in RFC5277 should be put in application data in the figure of 
the following I-D.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-06#section-4.3

Kind regards,

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2011 13:02:12 +0100

On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 06:57:53PM +0900, Tomoyuki Iijima wrote:

> adopted. And, preparing both HTTP and BEEP for NETCONF/SOAP is
> onerous. In contrast, WebSocket is expected to be used widely and is
> an extension of HTTP.

Every standards-track transport causes maintenance costs. Instead of
working on another transport for an "expected to be used widely"
protocol, I would rather spent time discussing whether some of the
existing standards-track transports should be made experimental or
historic. OK, I see that your I-D claims "Intended status:
Informational" but this sounds more like Experimental to me.

That said, I am somewhat concerned about the idea to create a
transport that can only handle a certain type of NETCONF messages.
This seems the wrong approach to me. Perhaps the goal should rather be
to declare NETCONF/SOAP historic and replace it with an Experimental
WebSocket transport. ;-)

/js (who is not making friends today)

-- 
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/>

---

From: Tomoyuki Iijima <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:10:28 +0900

Dear Juergen,

Thank you for your comments.

 > to declare NETCONF/SOAP historic and replace it with an Experimental

Yes, replacing a non-mandatory NETCONF/SOAP/HTTP with Experimental 
NETCONF/WebSocket might be an option. WebSocket is sure to be used 
widely since it can replace Ajax and Comet, which are arleady used 
widely. But, it's true that the number of companies that provide 
SOAP-based management system is increasing. In this regard, I thought 
making NETCONF/SOAP historic might harm NETCONF's deployment. That's why 
I've limited the scope. But, I know your argument makes sense.

Kind regards,

---

From: Andy Bierman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 15:58:41 -0700

Hi,

I am interested in hearing a brief summary about this draft,
and how it might work as a complete NETCONF transport.

The WebSocket API does not appear to be very far along
in the standards process.  Is it going to be an RFC?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hybi-thewebsocketprotocol-06

It might be better to wait until this is published before
working on yet another transport.

Andy

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Tomoyuki Iijima
Sent: Sunday, March 13, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich); Netconf
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft NETCONF Session Agenda for IETF 80

Dear Juergen,

Kind regards,