Subject: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 22:02:05 +0000

This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:

    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00>

In-room support for this draft was noted but, as always, it is necessary to confirm WG consensus on the list.  If interested in the WG defining an HTTPS-based solution for *configured subscriptions* (for which there are none to date), please voice your support for this draft's adoption.  If objecting, please state your reasons.  

PS: Authors, please additionally respond to as if there is any IPR to disclose.

Kent and Mahesh // as chairs

---

From: Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2019 15:47:09 -0700

I am not aware of any IPRs related to this draft.

Mahesh Jethanandani // as co-author.

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 3:02 PM, Kent Watsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 00:03:06 +0000

I'm not aware of any IPR related to this draft either.

Kent // as co-author

> On Aug 26, 2019, at 6:47 PM, Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
>> On Aug 26, 2019, at 3:02 PM, Kent Watsen <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
>> 
>> [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 09:15:31 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I think that defining a "simple" protocol for notification delivery
only is an interesting problem to work on.  However, this document
doesn't define this protocol.  It just says "https".  But how is the
client supposed to deliver the notifs?  PUT?  POST?  To which uri?
Further, it doesn't discuss authorization at all (which "user" will be
used for NACM checks of the notifications?)

The document relies on the client-server suite of drafts, including
the individual draft draft-kwatsen-netconf-http-client-server (these
need to be added as references BTW).  I would really like the WG to
finish these documents before starting to work on something new.
(BUT, I also think that having a module that is the user of these
generic client-server drafts is very useful to validate the design of
them.  (*))

I have a bunch of more detailed comments as well, but these can wait.

(*) An observation: This module introduces a level of indirection for
receivers; something we should have done in the
subscribed-notifications model directly.  Perhaps we should revisit
that model and add the indirection there instead.

/martin

Kent Watsen <[email-masked]> wrote:
>     https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00>
> 
> In-room support for this draft was noted but, as always, it is
> necessary to confirm WG consensus on the list.  If interested in the
> WG defining an HTTPS-based solution for *configured subscriptions*
> (for which there are none to date), please voice your support for this
> draft's adoption.  If objecting, please state your reasons.
>

---

From: Balázs Lengyel <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2019 16:00:13 +0000

I support the adoption of the draft. We would actually need this.

Regards Balazs

From: netconf <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: 2019. augusztus 27., kedd 0:02
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00

In-room support for this draft was noted but, as always, it is necessary to
confirm WG consensus on the list.  If interested in the WG defining an
HTTPS-based solution for *configured subscriptions* (for which there are
none to date), please voice your support for this draft's adoption.  If
objecting, please state your reasons.  

PS: Authors, please additionally respond to as if there is any IPR to
disclose.