Subject: [Netconf] mbj review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-04

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 15:30:37 +0100 (CET)

Hi,

Here is my WGLC review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-04.

o  2.1

  The first bullet says

      The server SHOULD default
      to connecting to one of the IANA-assigned ports defined in section
      Section 5

  This is a bit imprecise; you probably mean that a NETCONF server
  defaults to the IANA assigned NETCONF SSH port for SSH etc.

o  3.2, first paragraph

   s/connection/TCP connection/ ?

o  3.2, third paragraph

  This paragraph essentially says:

    "X is normally necessary, but due to Y, X is necessary."

  (where X is "verifying the server's identity")

  The logic is a bit weird.

o  3.2, fifth paragraph

  This paragraph uses "This strategy" a couple of times.  I *think* it
  always refers to the same thing, namely the idea of using a
  fingerprint of the key/cert for identification.  But at the end of
  the paragraph I wasn't sure anymore...  Maybe this could be
  clarified.

o  3.2, sixth paragraph

  The first sentence describes another identification method.  The
  rest of the paragraph talks about varifation.  Maybe make this a
  separate paragraph.

  The last sentence says "This strategy is recommended for
  all deployment scenarios."  It is not clear what "This strategy"
  refers to.  Is it to use something like the "Subject" field as the
  identity?  (probably not)

  At this point, it is not clear to me what I am supposed to implement
  if I want to create an interoperable implementation.

o  After 3.2

  I suggest you add a section "3.3  Configuration Data Model", with
  similar content as in 2.2 - how to configure this is out of scope.

/martin