Subject: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-01.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 14:44:48 -0700

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Network Configuration Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : NETCONF Call Home
        Author          : Kent Watsen
	Filename        : draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-01.txt
	Pages           : 10
	Date            : 2014-10-10

Abstract:
   This document presents NETCONF Call Home, which enables a NETCONF
   server to initiate a secure connection to the NETCONF client.
   NETCONF Call Home supports both the SSH and TLS transports, and does
   so in a way that preserves the SSH and TLS roles when compared to
   standard NETCONF over SSH or TLS connections.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-call-home/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-01

A diff from the previous version is available at:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-01

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 21:47:34 +0000

This update addresses all of Tom's comments.  Specifically:

   *  The term "TCP connection" is now used throughout.

   *  The terms "network element" and "management system" are now only
      used in the Motivation section.

   *  Restructured doc a little to create an Introduction section.

   *  Fixed reference in Applicability Statement so it would work
      equally well for SSH and TLS.

   *  Fixed reported odd wording and three references.

Thanks,
Kent

On 10/10/14, 5:44 PM, "[email-masked]"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: t.petch <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:47:44 +0100

Kent

Thanks for the prompt update, and also for undertaking the work - I do
think that this is the best document structure, within which to iron out
the wrinkles.

Talking of which, I find it hard to comment on the new Section 3.2 until
we have fixed the issue in rfc5539bis, namely what forms of
authentication are we covering with TLS.  The SSH side seems stable, the
TLS not.  We could require TLS client and server X.509 certificates
which would be simplest; I am unsure whether that would be acceptable or
not.

In passing, I note that the new RFC Editor Style Guide recommends the
use of TBD1 and TBD2, and not XXXX and YYYY - I think this is silly and
so would go on using XXXX and YYYY (and ZZZZ)

Tom Petch

---- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Watsen" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 10:47 PM
> > This draft is a work item of the Network Configuration Working Group
of
> >the IETF.

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:27:30 +0000

Hi Tom,

>think that this is the best document structure, within which to iron out

Excellent - good to know the new doc structure is working out.

>which would be simplest; I am unsure whether that would be acceptable or

Fair enough, we'll wait for 5539bis to settle down.

>so would go on using XXXX and YYYY (and ZZZZ)

But I see XXXX and YYYY in many drafts - weird.   I personally think that
XXXX is more eye-catching, but am willing to change to meeting RFC Editor
guild lines if others feel its important.

Thanks,
Kent