Subject: Re: [Netconf] server-model #46: move "peer_allowed_to_send" to Call Home draft?

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 21:59:29 +0000

Please note that the recently posted call-home-05 draft now specifies
keep-alive requirements.

For the server-model draft, my proposal is to:

 - remove the keep-alive configuration from the "listen" tree
 - not add any knobs for tcp timeouts

This proposal will be considered verified on May 23rd, if not objections
are raised  by then...

Kent

On 3/29/15, 5:11 PM, "Kent Watsen" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>
>This issue (see subject line and link below) was discussed during the
>Dallas meeting with no clear agreement, so bringing the discussion to the
>list now.
>
>As Juergen questioned originally, if configuring keep-alives (and perhaps
>tcp timeouts) is important, then the call-home draft should say something
>about it.   This makes sense as the call-home draft intends to describe
>the protocol, leaving the server-model draft to focus on the yang modules.
>  One issue arises, though, in that the server-model uses keep-alives
>under both the "call-home" and "listen" subtrees.  We may want to remove
>the keep-alive configuration under the "listen" subtree, where it only
>supports a low-value use-case.  If we remove it, then it clears the way to
>adding text to the call-home draft, as only the "call-home" subtree would
>be left in the netconf/restconf yang modules.
>
>Note: This issue is related to server-model #43 [1], which is about the
>default value for /keep-alives/interval-secs, and asks if the server-model
>should have a knob to configure the tcp timeout value.   If we agree that
>there should be a knob to configure the tcp timeout, then the call-home
>draft should discuss this in the same section where is would discuss the
>need for SSH/TLS-level keep-alives.
>
>
>This issue is hence moved to the OPEN (not VERIFY) state.  The issue will
>move to the VERIFY state with the above proposal if no objection is raised
>by April 6th.
>
>Reference: https://github.com/netconf-wg/server-model/issues/46
>
>Thanks,
>Kent
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Netconf mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf