Subject: [Netconf] Draft minutes/notes from the Virtual meting on Monday October 6, 2014

From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2014 17:48:51 +0000

Dear NETCONF WG,

below are the draft minutes as taken by the meeting robot, which we used already in the last meeting.
Many thanks to Kent for preparing the output.

As for all physical and virtual WG meetings the issue discussion needs to be verified on the maillist.

If there is no objection to the conclusions from the issue discussion below, the draft authors are going to extend or modify as discussed.
Please send your comments to the maillist.

Additional information on the issue discussion is available on netconf-wg github:
https://github.com/netconf-wg/restconf/issues and
https://github.com/netconf-wg/server-model/issues

Regards,
Mehmet

-----------

Virtual meeting attendees:

* Kent Watsen
* Juergen Schoenwaelder
* Andy Bierman
* Mahesh Jethhanandani
* Mehmet Ersue (WG co-chair)

===================
#netconf-wg Meeting
===================

Meeting started by kwatsen at 17:19:54 UTC.  The full logs are available
at netconf-wg/2014/netconf-wg.2014-10-06-17.19.log.html .

Meeting summary
-------------------

* Agenda Bashing  (kwatsen, 17:20:04)
  * meta meeting discussion  (kwatsen, 17:21:03)
  * need key participants  (kwatsen, 17:21:21)
  * focus is to go over issues as tracked by GitHub  (kwatsen, 17:21:36)
  * Who are key contributors for the meeting to happen? How are these
    "key contributors" defined?  (mj, 17:22:17)
  * I wish we had more time to discuss, how about 80% of any mailing
    list participants in drafts being discussed?  (kwatsen, 17:23:40)

* RESTCONF Issue #2  (kwatsen, 17:24:45)
  * LINK: https://github.com/netconf-wg/restconf/issues/2  (kwatsen,
    17:25:28)
  * kent says that auth mechanism may drive this  (kwatsen, 17:27:15)
  * juergen says for TLS, would want long-lived sessions too  (kwatsen,
    17:27:38)
  * sounds like there is agreement to try to make it show up as a
    session - we need to find how to satisfy the requirement  (kwatsen,
    17:30:36)
  * looks like an agreement  (Mehmet, 17:31:06)
  * Juergen: schema announcement should be protocol independent
    (Mehmet, 17:47:42)
  * juergen says reason we're discussing 6022 is so RESTCONF clients can
    discover module's supported  (kwatsen, 17:48:30)
  * there is a duplication concerning capabilities  (Mehmet, 17:53:22)
  * Monitoring can be kept protocol specific  (Mehmet, 17:54:03)
  * My requirement is that the same schema information is available to
    both NETCONF and RESTCONF clients  (JS__, 18:13:07)
  * factor out module list into separate module  (abierman, 18:13:19)
  * netconf capability and restconf capability list are different
    (abierman, 18:13:42)
  * module list is mandatory to implement in restconf  (abierman,
    18:14:32)
  * A generic session data model may be a separate piece of work.
    (JS__, 18:14:45)
  * this to address a catch-22 situation  (kwatsen, 18:14:50)
  * do not open RFC 6022  (abierman, 18:14:51)
  * how to show restconf sessions in /netconf-state/sessions  (abierman,
    18:15:40)
  * add identity restconf-tls (similar to netconf-tls) for transport
    (abierman, 18:15:58)
  * could not define any 6022 extensions now and define
    restconf-specific extensions later  (abierman, 18:16:57)
  * what about streams monitoring?  (abierman, 18:17:30)
  * defer all session monitoring to a future draft  (abierman, 18:19:16)

* RESTCONF Issue #7  (kwatsen, 18:21:14)
  * there was a call on this list  (kwatsen, 18:22:08)
  * two weeks ago it was ~ 11-9  (almost a split)  (kwatsen, 18:22:32)
  * 11 for option 'D', 9 for option 'A'  (kwatsen, 18:24:28)
  * Mehmet says we should discuss at next IETF meeting  (kwatsen,
    18:24:50)
  * Andy concerned it will delay the draft more  (kwatsen, 18:25:09)
  * Juergen says chairs should like to define a rough consensus
    statement  (kwatsen, 18:25:54)
  * ACTION: Mehmet to discuss with Bert  (kwatsen, 18:26:04)

* RESTCONF Issue #9  (kwatsen, 18:26:37)
  * Juergen notes that netconf-tls uses certificates  (kwatsen,
    18:28:45)
  * Kent says we should try that option first, to see how well it works
    for REST  (kwatsen, 18:29:19)
  * Juergen suggests we find other REST protocols and copy them
    (kwatsen, 18:29:56)
  * Andy asks if RESTCONF has requirement to extract username (Juergen
    confirms - for NACM)  (kwatsen, 18:30:33)
  * RFC 7285 says use HTTP digest for auth  (abierman, 18:31:50)
  * LINK: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7285  (kwatsen, 18:31:59)

* Wrapping up RESTCONF  (kwatsen, 18:38:23)
  * charter dates have been exceeded  (kwatsen, 18:38:53)
  * fixed deadlines aren't helpful  (kwatsen, 18:39:05)
  * need to prevent feature-creep  (kwatsen, 18:39:13)

* server-model #7  (Mehmet, 18:43:34)
  * issue #7 Do we need enable/disable knobs  (Mehmet, 18:44:24)
  * no strong objections. So the issue is closed.  (Mehmet, 18:45:42)
  * Bert has started consensus call.  (Mehmet, 18:45:58)

* server-model #10 (Mehmet, 18:46:00)
  * Add support for Restconf?  (Mehmet, 18:46:20)
  * better to have separate modules so do not need to make everything
    purely optional  (abierman, 18:53:34)
  * andy/kent say another model should be created specific for restconf
    (kwatsen, 18:54:23)

* server model issue #12  (kwatsen, 18:56:11)
  * Do you guys hear me?  (Mehmet, 18:57:16)
  * Andy and Juergen think that lot's of groupings make harder to read
    (kwatsen, 19:05:48)
  * Andy mentions that ODL also uses lots of groupings  (kwatsen,
    19:06:21)
  * kent to collect more opinions  (kwatsen, 19:07:10)

Meeting ended at 19:07:15 UTC.

Action items, by person
-----------------------

* Mehmet
  * Mehmet to discuss with Bert on the result of the consensus call for "RESTCONF modularity" and propose a way forward.

People present (lines said)
---------------------------

* kwatsen (41)
* abierman (11)
* Mehmet (11)
* meetbot (4)
* JS__ (2)
* mj (1)