From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Thu Nov 1 07:16:44 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 193D521F8D42 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:16:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.524 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9ZJruahUD2jf for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:16:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 064FF21F8D3D for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 07:16:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.56]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qA1EGdgn022459 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:16:39 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qA1EGZw3007321 for ; Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:16:38 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:16:35 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 15:16:34 +0100 Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A64045B64C3@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: NomCom 2012: Feedback and Office Hours Thread-Index: Ac24MjMukouj4/85T/u75A0cgwHhUwACPGTg From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Nov 2012 14:16:35.0810 (UTC) FILETIME=[80437C20:01CDB83B] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 2234 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1351779399-00006DFC-77A02F02/0-0/0-0 Subject: [Netconf] FW: NomCom 2012: Feedback and Office Hours X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2012 14:16:44 -0000 UGxlYXNlIGhlbHAgTm9tQ29tIHRvIHNlbGVjdCB0aGUgYXBwcm9wcmlhdGUgcGVyc29ucyBmb3Ig SUVURiBtYW5hZ2VtZW50Lg0KDQpNZWhtZXQgDQoNCi0tLS0tT3JpZ2luYWwgTWVzc2FnZS0tLS0t DQpGcm9tOiBpZXRmLWFubm91bmNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmcgW21haWx0bzppZXRmLWFubm91 bmNlLWJvdW5jZXNAaWV0Zi5vcmddIE9uIEJlaGFsZiBPZiBleHQgTm9tQ29tIENoYWlyDQpTZW50 OiBUaHVyc2RheSwgTm92ZW1iZXIgMDEsIDIwMTIgMToyOSBQTQ0KVG86IElFVEYgQW5ub3VuY2Vt ZW50IExpc3QNClN1YmplY3Q6IE5vbUNvbSAyMDEyOiBGZWVkYmFjayBhbmQgT2ZmaWNlIEhvdXJz DQoNClRoZSBJRVRGIE5vbWluYXRpb25zIENvbW1pdHRlZSAoTm9tQ29tKSBjb250aW51ZXMgdG8g c2VlayBpbnB1dCBmcm9tDQp0aGUgSUVURiBDb21tdW5pdHkuDQoNClRoZSBmaW5hbCBsaXN0IG9m IGNhbmRpZGF0ZXMgKGFzIHBlciBSRkMgNTY4MCkgdGhhdCB0aGUgTm9tQ29tIGlzDQpjb25zaWRl cmluZyBmb3Igb3BlbiBwb3NpdGlvbnMgY2FuIGJlIGZvdW5kIGF0Og0KaHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaWV0 Zi5vcmcvZ3JvdXAvbm9tY29tLzIwMTIvaW5wdXQvDQoNClRoZSBOb21Db20gd2lsbCBiZSBob2xk aW5nIG9mZmljZSBob3VycyBkdXJpbmcgSUVURiA4NSwgTW9uZGF5LQ0KVGh1cnNkYXkgZnJvbSAx OjAwcG0gdG8gMzowMHBtIGluIFJvb20gMzA1LiBUaGUgTm9tQ29tIHdlbGNvbWVzDQpjb21tZW50 cyBvbiBzcGVjaWZpYyBpbmRpdmlkdWFscywgYXMgd2VsbCBhcyBnZW5lcmFsIGZlZWRiYWNrIHJl bGF0ZWQgdG8NCmFueSBvZiB0aGUgcG9zaXRpb25zIHRoYXQgTm9tQ29tIGlzIGNvbnNpZGVyaW5n Lg0KDQpOb3RlOiBBIGxpc3Qgb2YgbGVhZGVyc2hpcCBwb3NpdGlvbnMgdGhhdCB0aGUgTm9tQ29t IGlzIGNvbnNpZGVyaW5nIGNhbiBiZQ0KZm91bmQgYXQ6IGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2dy b3VwL25vbWNvbS8yMDEyLw0KDQpJZiB0aGUgTm9tQ29tIG9mZmljZSBob3VycyBhcmUgaW5jb252 ZW5pZW50IGZvciB5b3Ugb3IgaWYgeW91IGNhbm5vdA0KYXR0ZW5kIElFVEYgODUsIHRoZSBOb21D b20gaXMgaGFwcHkgdG8gdGFrZSBjb21tdW5pdHkgaW5wdXQgdmlhIGVtYWlsDQp0byBub21jb20x MkBpZXRmLm9yZy4gQWRkaXRpb25hbGx5LCB0aGUgTm9tQ29tIGlzIGhhcHB5IHRvIGFycmFuZ2Ug YQ0KbWVldGluZyBvdXRzaWRlIG9mIG9mZmljZSBob3VycywganVzdCBzZW5kIHVzIGVtYWlsIGFu ZCB3ZSBjYW4gc2V0DQpzb21ldGhpbmcgdXAuDQoNCkNvbW1lbnRzIG9uIHNwZWNpZmljIGNhbmRp ZGF0ZXMgY2FuIGFsc28gYmUgcHJvdmlkZWQgdG8gdGhlIE5vbUNvbQ0KdmlhIHRoZSB3ZWIgZmVl ZGJhY2sgdG9vbDoNCmh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmlldGYub3JnL2dyb3VwL25vbWNvbS8yMDEyL2lucHV0 Lw0KDQpJbiBvcmRlciB0byBlbnN1cmUgdGhhdCB5b3VyIGlucHV0IGlzIHJlY2VpdmVkIGluIHRp bWUgdG8gYmUgdXNlZnVsLCBwbGVhc2UNCnByb3ZpZGUgeW91ciBpbnB1dCBvbiBvciBiZWZvcmUg U3VuZGF5LCBOb3ZlbWJlciAxMS4NCg0KVGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciB5b3VyIGhlbHAsDQotIE1hdHQg TGVwaW5za2kNCiAgbm9tY29tLWNoYWlyQGlldGYub3JnDQo= From bclaise@cisco.com Fri Nov 2 17:03:09 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6695311E80E3; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:03:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.02 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.022, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_46=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7XH+YVceFtjn; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:03:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BAC21F878E; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:03:07 -0700 (PDT) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA30360m024884; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:03:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [10.86.246.101] ([10.86.246.101]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA3034t5005838; Fri, 2 Nov 2012 20:03:05 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <50945F38.5090003@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2012 20:03:04 -0400 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121010 Thunderbird/16.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: adrian@olddog.co.uk References: <508FF9CF.2050902@cisco.com> <000001cdb708$ef460fe0$cdd22fa0$@olddog.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <000001cdb708$ef460fe0$cdd22fa0$@olddog.co.uk> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------050401040609050004080209" Cc: 'NETCONF' , 'NETMOD Working Group' Subject: Re: [Netconf] Please attend the IRS BoF X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 00:03:09 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050401040609050004080209 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear all, Ok, "This BoF will/should be speaking about YANG for data modeling." is a poor choice of words. Actually my shortcut. To me, this entire SDN story is about a config management issue, which in turn is a data modeling issue. And I see IRS as one part of SDN story. So let me rephrase OLD: This BoF will/should be speaking about YANG for data modeling. NEW: _ IMHO_, YANG SHOULD be a key piece of the IRS data modeling, and NETCONF MAY be. So NETCONF/YANG experts, keep an eye on this initiative. When I saw the first IRS draft from Tom Nadeau (in a flight right now, can't check the exact draft name), basically telling the NETCONF was not good enough ... I was a little bit worried Now, I'm happier with the text in the current charter: 5. An analysis of existing IETF and other protocols and encoding languages against the requirements. ... This BoF is to determine focus and support for work within the IETF to specify abstract data information models, specific data models, and protocols to operate the IRS. The BoF does not assume that new data modeling languages or protocols will be required - that decision is expected to form part of the analysis carried out by a working group if one is formed. That takes care of my concerns. And, as an OPS AD, I will be carefully double-check that if NETCONF and/or YANG are not the right choices, this is for a very good reason, which doesn't solve the problem statement. And from there, I want to see if we could improve NETCONF/YANG Another reason why I'm pushing the NETMOD participation in IRS is that we have this draft draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-05 (A YANG Data Model for Routing Configuration), on which we need to get the IRS people feedback. However, I agree with the approach (used cases, problem statement, architecture/framework), but we want anyway to get some feedback from the routing and IRS experts on this YANG module. I hope it clarifies. Regards, Benoit > > I shall be disappointed if this BoF talks about YANG for data modelling. > > The first draft of the charter posted on the IRS mailing list says: > > > The IRS working group works to develop a framework and > > > architecture that will enable specific use cases, and lead to > > > an understanding of the informational models and > > > requirements for encodings and protocols. > > ...and > > > The working group is chartered to work on the following items: > > > > > > 1. Architecture and framework for IRS including considerations of > > >policy and security > > > > > > 2. Tightly scoped key use cases for operational use of IRS. These > > >use cases will include at least: > > > - Interactions with the RIB > > > - Association of routing policies with routing state > > > - The ability to extract information about topology from the network. > > >Injection and creation of topology will not be considered as an initial > > >work item. > > > Other use cases may be adopted by the working group only after > > > milestones have been added to the charter page. > > > > > > 3. Abstract information models consistent with the use cases > > > > > > 4. Requirements for IRS protocols and encoding languages > > > > > > 5. An analysis of existing IETF and other protocols and encoding languages against the > requirements. > > ...and > > > The working group is not currently chartered to develop protocols, > > > encoding languages, or data models. > > What is more, the BoF description posted on the wiki and forming part > of the grant of the BoF says: > > >This BoF is to determine focus and support for work within the IETF > > >to specify abstract data information models, specific data models, > > >and protocols to operate the IRS. The BoF does not assume that new > > >data modeling languages or protocols will be required - that decision > > >is expected to form part of the analysis carried out by a working > > >group if one is formed. > > My disappointment if YANG is mentioned during the BoF will be because > it will demonstrate that people have not understood the need to > develop use cases and requirements *before* discussing whether > existing protocols and encoding languages are suitable for the task at > hand. It would be frankly as absurd to rule out Netconf as one of the > protocols used in IRS as it would be to demand that it is used because > we have currently no idea what function we are trying to provide. > Similarly, it would be wrong to rule YANG in or out at this stage. > > So, I hope the BoF will talk about use cases and WG charter, and not > about solution protocols and encoding languages. > > Nevertheless, I hope that we get lots of Ops clue in this meeting and > encourage you to come along. > > Thanks, > > Adrian > > *From:*Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com] > *Sent:* 30 October 2012 16:01 > *To:* NETMOD Working Group; NETCONF > *Cc:* Adrian Farrel > *Subject:* Please attend the IRS BoF > > Dear all, > > I encourage you all to attend the IRS BoF, 1740-1940 Afternoon Session > III > > > > > Salon D > > > > RTG > > > > irs > > > > Description: cid:part2.02000006.09090603@cisco.comInterface to the > Routing System BOF > > > This BoF will!should be speaking about YANG for data modeling. > Unfortunately, no agenda yet at > https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/85/agenda.html > The mailer is https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss > > Regards, Benoit. > > --------------050401040609050004080209 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="------------060805080805000004020607" --------------060805080805000004020607 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear all,

Ok, "This BoF will/should be speaking about YANG for data modeling." is a poor choice of words.
Actually my shortcut. To me, this entire SDN story is about a config management issue, which in turn is a data modeling issue. And I see IRS as one part of SDN story.

So let me rephrase
OLD:
    This BoF will/should be speaking about YANG for data modeling.
NEW:
    IMHO, YANG SHOULD be a key piece of the IRS data modeling, and NETCONF MAY be.  So
    NETCONF/YANG experts, keep an eye on this initiative.

When I saw the first IRS draft from Tom Nadeau (in a flight right now, can't check the exact draft name), basically telling the NETCONF was not good enough ... I was a little bit worried

Now, I'm happier with the text in the current charter:
5. An analysis of existing IETF and other protocols and encoding languages against the requirements.

 ...

This BoF is to determine focus and support for work within the IETF

to specify abstract data information models, specific data models,

and protocols to operate the IRS. The BoF does not assume that new
data modeling languages or protocols will be required - that decision

 is expected to form part of the analysis carried out by a working

group if one is formed.

That takes care of my concerns. And, as an OPS AD, I will be carefully double-check that if NETCONF and/or YANG are not the right choices, this is for a very good reason, which doesn't solve the problem statement. And from there, I want to see if we could improve NETCONF/YANG

Another reason why I'm pushing the NETMOD participation in IRS is that we have this draft
draft-ietf-netmod-routing-cfg-05 (A YANG Data Model for Routing Configuration), on which we need to get the IRS people feedback.
However, I agree with the approach (used cases, problem statement, architecture/framework), but we want anyway to get some feedback from the routing and IRS experts on this YANG module.

I hope it clarifies.

Regards, Benoit

I shall be disappointed if this BoF talks about YANG for data modelling.

 

The first draft of the charter posted on the IRS mailing list says:

 

> The IRS working group works to develop a framework and

> architecture that will enable specific use cases, and lead to

> an understanding of the informational models and

> requirements for encodings and protocols.

 

...and

 

> The working group is chartered to work on the following items:

> 

> 1. Architecture and framework for IRS including considerations of

>    policy and security

> 

> 2. Tightly scoped key use cases for operational use of IRS. These

>  use cases will include at least:

> - Interactions with the RIB

> - Association of routing policies with routing state

> - The ability to extract information about topology from the network.

>    Injection and creation of topology will not be considered as an initial

>    work item.

> Other use cases may be adopted by the working group only after

> milestones have been added to the charter page.

> 

> 3. Abstract information models consistent with the use cases

> 

> 4. Requirements for IRS protocols and encoding languages

>

> 5. An analysis of existing IETF and other protocols and encoding languages against the requirements.

 

...and

 

> The working group is not currently chartered to develop protocols,

> encoding languages, or data models.

 

What is more, the BoF description posted on the wiki and forming part of the grant of the BoF says:

 

>   This BoF is to determine focus and support for work within the IETF

>   to specify abstract data information models, specific data models,

>   and protocols to operate the IRS. The BoF does not assume that new

>   data modeling languages or protocols will be required - that decision

>   is expected to form part of the analysis carried out by a working

>   group if one is formed.

 

My disappointment if YANG is mentioned during the BoF will be because it will demonstrate that people have not understood the need to develop use cases and requirements *before* discussing whether existing protocols and encoding languages are suitable for the task at hand. It would be frankly as absurd to rule out Netconf as one of the protocols used in IRS as it would be to demand that it is used because we have currently no idea what function we are trying to provide. Similarly, it would be wrong to rule YANG in or out at this stage.

 

So, I hope the BoF will talk about use cases and WG charter, and not about solution protocols and encoding languages.

 

Nevertheless, I hope that we get lots of Ops clue in this meeting and encourage you to come along.

 

Thanks,

Adrian

 

 

From: Benoit Claise [mailto:bclaise@cisco.com]
Sent: 30 October 2012 16:01
To: NETMOD Working Group; NETCONF
Cc: Adrian Farrel
Subject: Please attend the IRS BoF

 

Dear all,

I encourage you all to attend the IRS BoF, 1740-1940 Afternoon Session III


Salon D

RTG

irs

Description: cid:part2.02000006.09090603@cisco.comInterface to the Routing System BOF


This BoF will!should be speaking about YANG for data modeling.
Unfortunately, no agenda yet at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/85/agenda.html
The mailer is https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/irs-discuss

Regards, Benoit.



--------------060805080805000004020607 Content-Type: image/gif Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: R0lGODlhEAAQAMIDAAAA//8AAP//AP///6CgoP///////////yH5BAEKAAcALAAAAAAQABAA AAMreLrc/jA6Qmm4d1aCc9tcp1VdMFpiA6yr4LoO275CLNO1etM2i0vAoLCRAAA7 --------------060805080805000004020607-- --------------050401040609050004080209-- From dromasca@avaya.com Sun Nov 4 04:42:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA6121F8632; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 04:42:20 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -103.355 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-103.355 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.244, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uJp5UyfPTJmS; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 04:42:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com (co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com [198.152.13.100]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B0C221F8619; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 04:42:20 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av4EADthllCHCzI1/2dsb2JhbABEwzqBCIIgAQEDEh4KPxIBFRUGDAwHQBAHAQQBGhqHaAucOJwSBJFcYQOcCIo3gnA X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,710,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="374560630" Received: from unknown (HELO p-us1-erheast.us1.avaya.com) ([135.11.50.53]) by co300216-co-outbound.net.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2012 07:34:40 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO 307622ANEX5.global.avaya.com) ([135.64.140.16]) by p-us1-erheast-out.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 04 Nov 2012 07:19:16 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2012 13:42:17 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: sacm bof Thread-Index: Ac26idKrM7JV2wjoTu6IQf5TJt+kxQ== From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: , "netconf" Cc: "Moriarty, Kathleen" Subject: [Netconf] sacm bof X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 12:42:21 -0000 For the OPS and NETCONF communities - a reminder that a BOF on Security Automation and Continuous Monitoring (SACM) will be hold on Tuesday morning at IETF-85. See the agenda at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/85/agenda/sacm/. Please try to attend.=20 Regards, Dan From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Sun Nov 4 15:33:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3548821F85B0 for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:33:40 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.627 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.627 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tZuMEJej9WuH for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:33:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77BAE21F858B for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 15:33:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qA4NXZZY006798 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 00:33:35 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.94]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qA4NXUB3007368; Mon, 5 Nov 2012 00:33:34 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 00:29:29 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 00:29:27 +0100 Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A64045B6773@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Agenda update for NETCONF Session Thread-Index: Ac265DuV26n5s3LvRfGk2NpR9Kj1BA== From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Nov 2012 23:29:30.0090 (UTC) FILETIME=[3CEA24A0:01CDBAE4] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 290 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1352072016-00006DFC-25155585/0-0/0-0 Cc: ext Juergen Quittek Subject: [Netconf] Agenda update for NETCONF Session X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 23:33:40 -0000 Please find below an update for the agenda. Added a short presentation on: Use of NETCONF in Open Networking Foundation Config-Mgmt by Juergen Quittek - ONF Config-Mgmt WG Vice Chair (10min.) http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/agenda/agenda-85-netconf Cheers,=20 Mehmet=20 From simon.leinen@switch.ch Sun Nov 4 23:36:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E97221F857A for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 23:36:08 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ir7FlNEb-wJD for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 23:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from elenski.switch.ch (elenski.switch.ch [IPv6:2001:620:0:14::9c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 602D421F89FB for ; Sun, 4 Nov 2012 23:36:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from surlej.switch.ch (surlej.switch.ch [IPv6:2001:620:0:e::69]) by elenski.switch.ch (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.4) with ESMTP id qA57a5tE002868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 5 Nov 2012 08:36:06 +0100 Received: from [2001:620:0:46:dc38:16bb:9453:6d2c] (helo=dhcp154.ki.iif.hu) by surlej.switch.ch with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TVHE5-0001Lf-HL; Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:36:05 +0100 From: Simon Leinen To: "Ersue\, Mehmet \(NSN - DE\/Munich\)" In-Reply-To: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A64045B6773@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> (Mehmet Ersue's message of "Mon, 5 Nov 2012 00:29:27 +0100") References: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A64045B6773@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (darwin) X-Face: 1Nk*r=:$IBBb8|TyRB'2WSY6u:BzMO7N)#id#-4_}MsU5?vTI?dez|JiutW4sKBLjp.l7, F 7QOld^hORRtpCUj)!cP]gtK_SyK5FW(+o"!or:v^C^]OxX^3+IPd\z, @ttmwYVO7l`6OXXYR` Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:36:04 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-CanIt-Geo: ip=2001:620:0:e::69; country=CH X-CanItPRO-Stream: switch-ch:outbound (inherits from switch-ch:default, base:default) X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) Cc: netconf@ietf.org, ext Juergen Quittek Subject: Re: [Netconf] Agenda update for NETCONF Session X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 07:36:08 -0000 "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN writes: > Use of NETCONF in Open Networking Foundation Config-Mgmt > by Juergen Quittek - ONF Config-Mgmt WG Vice Chair (10min.) "We put the 'ONF' in 'NETCONF'!" (Sorry, couldn't resist.) -- Simon. From mbj@tail-f.com Wed Nov 7 08:49:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 951B621F8C33 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:49:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.946 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.946 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 08YQgVzfpneJ for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:49:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tail-f.com (de-2007.d.ipeer.se [213.180.74.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF31E21F8C20 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 08:49:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (dhcp-469c.meeting.ietf.org [130.129.70.156]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96F171200A6E for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 17:49:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 11:49:40 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <20121107.114940.135817644.mbj@tail-f.com> To: netconf@ietf.org From: Martin Bjorklund X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5rc2 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Netconf] review of draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5539bis-01 X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:49:46 -0000 Hi, I have reviewed this draft and here are my comments. o 2.1 Once the TLS handshake has finished, the client and the server MAY begin to exchange NETCONF data. In particular, the client will send complete XML documents to the server containing elements, and the server will respond with complete XML documents containing elements. I guess the above might be ok, but I think it is unnecessary and somewhat confusing since it starts to talk about before the discussion about . I suggest you remove the 3 sentences starting with "In particular". I think you should also add text here that says that client/server identity verification (as described in section 3) is done before the message is sent (for the server this means before the NETCONF session has started). o 2.1 The previous version [RFC5539] of this document used the same framing sequence defined in [RFC6242] Did you mean 4742? o 2.2 The TLS session is closed as described in [RFC6242] Section 7.2.1. s/6242/5246/ o 3.2.1 The NETCONF server MUST implement the algorithms for deriving NETCONF usernames from presented certificates that are documented in the ietf-netconf-tls YANG module, defined in Section 3.2.3 So here is a "MUST implement", but the YANG module defines the certificate mapping procedure as a feature. o 3.2.3 I suggest you run pyang --ietf on this module, and look into the problems reported. pyang --ietf checks the guidelines defined in RFC 6087. o container cert-maps Once a matching cert-map list entry has been found, the NETCONF server uses the map-type list to determine how the NETCONF username associated with the session should be determined. See the map- type leaf's description for details on determining the NETCONF username value. In the text above, 'map-type' is refered to both as a list and a leaf. But it is actually a choice :) o list cert-map list cert-map { key "key"; ... leaf key { type string; nacm:default-deny-all; description "The key associated with the cert-map list."; } Is this an arbitrary name? If so I suggest you change the leaf's name to "name" and change the description to say this. o list cert-map description "A single list entry that specifies a mapping for an incoming TLS certificate to a NETCONF username."; This text about list entry seems to be copied from the MIB; it doesn't really apply in YANG. You should say "... each list entry specifies a mapping..." Actually, the list's function is described already in the container above. o leaf specified I think this should be renamed to 'user-name'. That's more descriptive and consistent with list psk-map. o leaf key (in list psk-map) Shouldn't this leaf be mandatory? o leaf user-name I have no idea what kind of values people use for PSK identities, but is it common to use a value that typically can be used as the NETCONF user name? If so, maybe the 'user-name' leaf can be optional. o list psk-map Is the intention that this list is the configration of psk for the tls server, or is it assumed that they are configured in some other way? I.e., if I add a new psk identity / key in this list, will the TLS server pick it up? From bclaise@cisco.com Wed Nov 7 10:35:30 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 020A621F8C20 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:35:30 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.491 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.491 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.109, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BKhFajmFstsl for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:35:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (av-tac-rtp.cisco.com [64.102.19.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75A8F21F8BF9 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 10:35:29 -0800 (PST) X-TACSUNS: Virus Scanned Received: from rooster.cisco.com (localhost.cisco.com [127.0.0.1]) by av-tac-rtp.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA7IZSgu018756 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:35:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from [10.82.212.55] (rtp-vpn4-1079.cisco.com [10.82.212.55]) by rooster.cisco.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qA7IZSlA022385 for ; Wed, 7 Nov 2012 13:35:28 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <509AA9F0.4060601@cisco.com> Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 13:35:28 -0500 From: Benoit Claise User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NETCONF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Netconf] Conditions for advancing the NETCONF RFCs X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 18:35:30 -0000 Dear all, There are the conditions (from RFC6410) for advancing NETCONF The IESG, in an IETF-wide Last Call of at least four weeks, confirms that a document advances from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard. The request for reclassification is sent to the IESG along with an explanation of how the criteria have been met. The criteria are: (1) There are at least two independent interoperating implementations with widespread deployment and successful operational experience. (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones. (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly increase implementation complexity. (4) If the technology required to implement the specification requires patented or otherwise controlled technology, then the set of implementations must demonstrate at least two independent, separate and successful uses of the licensing process. Regards, Benoit From bertietf@bwijnen.net Thu Nov 8 08:15:13 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D43A521F8A13 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:15:13 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.583 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.583 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.016, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Uqz-INIcFYN0 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:15:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B74A821F8B06 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 08:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from dodo.ripe.net ([193.0.23.4]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TWUkv-0000JE-Au for netconf@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:15:02 +0100 Received: from cat.ripe.net ([193.0.1.249] helo=dhcp-5420.meeting.ietf.org) by dodo.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TWUkv-0003Bp-2m for netconf@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:15:01 +0100 Message-ID: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:15:00 -0500 From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Netconf Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.48/RELEASE, bases: 20120425 #7816575, check: 20121108 clean X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd41e9d475505c9d01e551661d85c53715e Subject: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:15:14 -0000 Dear WG participants, This is a call for consensus to do the work that is required to advance these from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard: - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). Background. At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol documents. As you can read in the slides at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.pdf we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the documents on the standards track. The set that is under consideration is as follows: Netconf Protocol Documents: - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and no objections. So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm (or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this work. We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, I will ask for input on that in a separate email. Bert and Mehmet From phil@juniper.net Thu Nov 8 10:33:14 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C3421F8737 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:33:14 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -6.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pfTDNm-1yCBT for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:33:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og115.obsmtp.com (exprod7og115.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.217]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3504E21F8201 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:33:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob115.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUJv653n4pePyc41R6fWyTEV88/cqx/Ej@postini.com; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 10:33:14 PST Received: from magenta.juniper.net (172.17.27.123) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:30:20 -0800 Received: from idle.juniper.net (idleski.juniper.net [172.25.4.26]) by magenta.juniper.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id qA8IUI375844; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:30:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phil@juniper.net) Received: from idle.juniper.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by idle.juniper.net (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id qA8IUGmc018941; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:30:17 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from phil@idle.juniper.net) Message-ID: <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" In-Reply-To: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 13:30:16 -0500 From: Phil Shafer MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Netconf Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 18:33:14 -0000 "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: >This is a call for consensus to do the work that is >required to advance these from Proposed Standard >to Internet Standard: +1 Thanks, Phil From margaretw42@gmail.com Thu Nov 8 11:27:49 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8307721F85BB for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:27:49 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EcnkrNclmfp5 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pb0-f44.google.com (mail-pb0-f44.google.com [209.85.160.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A769021F84C4 for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 11:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-pb0-f44.google.com with SMTP id ro8so2409397pbb.31 for ; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:27:48 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=vAVBQFwBBaA6LNXuOPi94sIXiulDBlpHYugLk0WuEDo=; b=PPjJp3sR+UftcGDZtYkQIbHA0BgXB1EpzAsmLN2yAMZ/EwDRMxc31b6JpWjOd6+C4y bJXNB/KwSSkq/SR7OAnyWnEmQ354yHG68kIHqKwOl6+F1b2PA0+RH/9H1quwPU1eKIC0 xJx20Fp0h97hEYQ4XmGXFu4586Bliua/3USGCOzT/c/S5MH1UCBzVnnPhS0tsocbyt6r y8GiqL0W5MDLg8GTAMlXSEncWWRfNpsarbnnVAzevKooEE0Iu99Ee50mQMUmAoWTMiBY 5U/jPhc9xDrHTqVTzfWwqNBeJepMPtdP/0366HKu39WO7lYJRBYvoJX2EsamDVxs624f Ycdg== Received: by 10.68.235.2 with SMTP id ui2mr20181659pbc.163.1352402868516; Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:27:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:462a:60ff:fef6:acfc? ([2001:df8:0:16:462a:60ff:fef6:acfc]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x6sm16561303pav.29.2012.11.08.11.27.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:27:47 -0800 (PST) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Margaret Wasserman In-Reply-To: <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 14:27:43 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <8C72A18D-95C8-4666-B764-0D1E207CC82C@lilacglade.org> References: <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> To: Phil Shafer X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:29:19 -0800 Cc: Netconf Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:27:49 -0000 ++ Margaret On Nov 8, 2012, at 1:30 PM, Phil Shafer wrote: > "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: >> This is a call for consensus to do the work that is >> required to advance these from Proposed Standard >> to Internet Standard: > > +1 > > Thanks, > Phil > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Thu Nov 8 12:18:58 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD36A21F862E for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 12:18:58 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.578 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.578 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.021, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id uY9Ythcs1d5K for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 12:18:58 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1FC21F86DB for ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 12:18:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qA8KIsYw021743 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 21:18:54 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.94]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qA8KIr4u012419; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 21:18:54 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by DEMUEXC048.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 8 Nov 2012 21:17:49 +0100 Received: from 10.159.32.94 ([10.159.32.94]) by DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.22]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 8 Nov 2012 20:17:48 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thread-Topic: Summary of NETCONF Session at IETF 85 Thread-Index: Ac297h6DGZsspqklQ/qMFG2y1RaGuQ== From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2012 15:17:49 -0500 To: , "Benoit Claise" MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Nov 2012 20:17:49.0649 (UTC) FILETIME=[1FC51C10:01CDBDEE] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 1202 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1352405934-00005484-92152A3F/0-0/0-0 Subject: [Netconf] Summary of NETCONF Session at IETF 85 X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 20:18:58 -0000 Hi Benoit, All, below is a summary and action items from the discussion in the NETCONF WG session on Wednesday, November 7, 2012 in the IETF 85 meeting. - We had approx. 47 participants in the 1,5 hour NETCONF session. - We reviewed the status of the WG - We went through the WG and new documents and had a good discussion. Action items: - Bert to write up interoperability report - Bert to poll for deployment experience - Bert to call for confirmation or objections to advance docs on mailing list. 8-9 agreed, no objections - 5539bis draft to be updated to address comments and issues discussed at the meeting (see slides). After that we'll need another WGLC. - get2 seems to be addressing a set of problems we want to solve. 15 in favor, no objections. - operational state was discussed, no clear direction yet on how to move forward. Probably a joint draft from the various authors might help us with that. - ONF presented their use of NetConf. They are currently running XML over NetConf. They have a 'call home' use case and might ask the Netconf WG to find a new way to support it after declaring BEEP as 'historic'. Bert & Mehmet From alex@cisco.com Fri Nov 9 17:33:27 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C296221F84BD for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:33:27 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U1heYVQX8J6V for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:33:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.86.74]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 284B421F84B7 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 17:33:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=642; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1352511207; x=1353720807; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rry6VkSVInjEmKKYTGUPxp5aS8xfjUEsZK3S/y/tq+o=; b=W0lokSf5syWXCau3l6oKfpj76daGj7b07q5yj83u5mnJKWFm8Dip7sgH RhwmLw/yatTTkrFsVcIvGtWMIKKIFeI/l3Dzqydg7cAnl7CBPmnHOTTgA ufeCl3+bv0p/CvS6xxh/IVbzIcQptvh08zniKkUo7RLs8IMbywIK7q6em I=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ag0FADyunVCtJXG//2dsb2JhbABEhVK+AIEIgh4BAQEEAQEBDwEKHTQLDAQCAQgRBAEBCxQJBycLFAkIAgQOBQgah2gLnW+gAgSMFIVpYQOkU4Frgm+CGQ X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5400,1158,6891"; a="140799884" Received: from rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com ([173.37.113.191]) by rcdn-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Nov 2012 01:33:26 +0000 Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core2-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id qAA1XQOr028522 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:33:26 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-x05.cisco.com ([169.254.15.88]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.001; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 19:33:26 -0600 From: "Alexander Clemm (alex)" To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track Thread-Index: AQHNvd+HYRsRhK3fPEmasdxzIxaB8pfiSumQ Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:33:25 +0000 Message-ID: References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.154.200.88] x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19350.005 x-tm-as-result: No--33.342000-8.000000-31 x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: Netconf Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 01:33:27 -0000 +1 --- Alex -----Original Message----- From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf = Of Phil Shafer Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 10:30 AM To: Bert Wijnen (IETF) Cc: Netconf Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol do= cs on standards track "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: >This is a call for consensus to do the work that is required to advance=20 >these from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard: +1 Thanks, Phil _______________________________________________ Netconf mailing list Netconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf From andy@yumaworks.com Fri Nov 9 18:40:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A8621F85C3 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:40:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.727 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.727 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.416, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_HTML_USL_OBFU=1.666] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2vrsruBlnD0o for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:40:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEF6421F85C2 for ; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fl11so4938245vcb.31 for ; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:40:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=V2xHmIyBNOyKGHG/P+MVEmukctTUQB/vwJ1n9vWWRkc=; b=JW1wx0RMV0gyQFqsIGqoKWZNl0xPz79KfSlAsV6SFjQIKhDjmgVn04VwtnHwrrsmrs OE22UYU9XisyJ56l4R2zIdZ6DdQHf1PYaMfjMaNnp2RQziKDuTUMkL6DzfuRbtsDtCSm nmhhOwNnz2SUAyt2oDq+mj/XoJB2piRZJQZVtX6+UER/T7Th5cugfK4fRIzViIw218Tb xYCduBOLX0pksiDmcrCWpaFvaZ3BIv3OG8kqko3rB22Eiqt8+v44YqHfsGzJ/SXezI9P 0dMXgNJ+M3w0cvk9uhwOX12VKnpO3djZ9tMfKb5MVLnQXq9NjJLkX6GHhqIA7WccUhUO AHhw== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.37.43 with SMTP id v11mr11510019vdj.29.1352515206089; Fri, 09 Nov 2012 18:40:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.58.201.7 with HTTP; Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:40:06 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 18:40:06 -0800 Message-ID: From: Andy Bierman To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30780a72698d8c04ce1afc93 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQky32g3j2RuqeZyn1XIYCXMtkq0RVXT8PQr5DI2aQumldQRoCeG+b55JilSbuAdh9wv5tz0 Cc: Netconf Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 02:40:07 -0000 --20cf30780a72698d8c04ce1afc93 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 +1 On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: > Dear WG participants, > > This is a call for consensus to do the work that is > required to advance these from Proposed Standard > to Internet Standard: > > - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol > - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH > - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf > - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications > - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability > - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model > > Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). > > Background. > At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the > Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol > documents. As you can read in the slides at > > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/**85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.**pdf > > we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations > (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all > mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. > > So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that > we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the > documents on the standards track. > > The set that is under consideration is as follows: > > Netconf Protocol Documents: > - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 > - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) > > In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and > no objections. > > So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm > (or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this > work. > > We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, > I will ask for input on that in a separate email. > > Bert and Mehmet > ______________________________**_________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/netconf > --20cf30780a72698d8c04ce1afc93 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1

On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 8:15 AM, Bert W= ijnen (IETF) <bertietf@bwijnen.net> wrote:
Dear WG participants,

This is a call for consensus to do the work that is
required to advance these from Proposed Standard
to Internet Standard:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0- RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model

Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone).

Background.
At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the
Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol
documents. As you can read in the slides at

=C2=A0 http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slid= es-85-netconf-3.pdf

we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations
(10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all
mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities.

So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that
we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the
documents on the standards track.

The set that is under consideration is as follows:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0Netconf Protocol Documents:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243
=C2=A0 =C2=A0- 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months)

In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and
no objections.

So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm
(or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this
work.

We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols,
I will ask for input on that in a separate email.

Bert and Mehmet
_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org<= br> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

--20cf30780a72698d8c04ce1afc93-- From rkrejci@cesnet.cz Sun Nov 11 02:03:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B28B621F88CA for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 02:03:19 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wNdvXMVn7FUu for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 02:03:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from office2.cesnet.cz (office2.cesnet.cz [IPv6:2001:718:1:101::144:244]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E0C721F884A for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 02:03:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ip-85-160-38-15.eurotel.cz (ip-85-160-38-15.eurotel.cz [85.160.38.15]) by office2.cesnet.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B8C362CDE05B; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:03:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <509F77E0.9060301@cesnet.cz> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 11:03:12 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkZWsgS3JlasSNw60=?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" References: <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> In-Reply-To: <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netconf Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 10:03:19 -0000 +1 Best regards, Radek Krejci Dne 08.11.12 19:30, Phil Shafer napsal(a): > "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: >> This is a call for consensus to do the work that is >> required to advance these from Proposed Standard >> to Internet Standard: > +1 > > Thanks, > Phil > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf From mbj@tail-f.com Sun Nov 11 06:30:12 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60A2F21F851C for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:30:12 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iBREZ6gzCnRH for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:30:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tail-f.com (de-2007.d.ipeer.se [213.180.74.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D22C821F85EE for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 06:30:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (c213-100-166-57.cust.tele2.se [213.100.166.57]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E619D1200D46; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:30:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:30:09 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20121111.153009.389749092.mbj@tail-f.com> To: bertietf@bwijnen.net From: Martin Bjorklund In-Reply-To: <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.4 on Emacs 23.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netconf@ietf.org Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 14:30:12 -0000 Phil Shafer wrote: > "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: > >This is a call for consensus to do the work that is > >required to advance these from Proposed Standard > >to Internet Standard: > > +1 +1 /martin From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Sun Nov 11 09:16:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33BC721F860D for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:16:15 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.527 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.527 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.072, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DUzbFiBM0S0H for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:16:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D94B21F85C4 for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:16:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qABHG7Pd003094 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:16:07 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC047.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.32.93]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qABHG4rU028070; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:16:06 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by DEMUEXC047.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:14:14 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:14:12 +0100 Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640464DE5D@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> In-Reply-To: <20121111.153009.389749092.mbj@tail-f.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track Thread-Index: Ac3AGRTAQAbVUk82TEaI8ZQ38pF2UQAFtOpQ References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net><201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> <20121111.153009.389749092.mbj@tail-f.com> From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: , X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Nov 2012 17:14:14.0082 (UTC) FILETIME=[F9383A20:01CDC02F] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 774 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1352654170-00005484-6F9395C9/0-0/0-0 Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:16:15 -0000 Support. Mehmet=20 > -----Original Message----- > From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ext > Martin Bjorklund > Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:30 PM > To: bertietf@bwijnen.net > Cc: netconf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on > standards track >=20 > Phil Shafer wrote: > > "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: > > >This is a call for consensus to do the work that is > > >required to advance these from Proposed Standard > > >to Internet Standard: > > > > +1 >=20 > +1 >=20 >=20 > /martin > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf From calle@tail-f.com Sun Nov 11 09:29:28 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1180021F854C for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:29:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.65 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.65 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IM5WhEORPcuX for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:29:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tail-f.com (de-2007.d.ipeer.se [213.180.74.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62AD121F853A for ; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 09:29:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.198] (c83-251-191-8.bredband.comhem.se [83.251.191.8]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 531191200D7A; Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:29:26 +0100 (CET) References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> <201211081830.qA8IUGmc018941@idle.juniper.net> <20121111.153009.389749092.mbj@tail-f.com> <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640464DE5D@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640464DE5D@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <9C74A04B-DBE0-4DA5-840E-CC77B4F902FD@tail-f.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (10A523) From: Carl Moberg Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 18:29:24 +0100 To: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" Cc: "" Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 17:29:28 -0000 +1 On 11 nov 2012, at 18:14, "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" wrote: > Support. >=20 > Mehmet=20 >=20 >> -----Original Message----- >> From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of ext >> Martin Bjorklund >> Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2012 3:30 PM >> To: bertietf@bwijnen.net >> Cc: netconf@ietf.org >> Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf > protocol docs on >> standards track >>=20 >> Phil Shafer wrote: >>> "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: >>>> This is a call for consensus to do the work that is >>>> required to advance these from Proposed Standard >>>> to Internet Standard: >>>=20 >>> +1 >>=20 >> +1 >>=20 >>=20 >> /martin >> _______________________________________________ >> Netconf mailing list >> Netconf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf From kwatsen@juniper.net Mon Nov 12 10:27:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C30EA21F8748 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:27:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rUa+TZJnQXRk for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAA7221F86E5 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKE/eZO9dfNLHnPhBnGjGkkedGQadQMh@postini.com; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:27:05 PST Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB03-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.37) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:22:58 -0800 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:22:57 -0800 Received: from CH1EHSOBE020.bigfish.com (216.32.181.184) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 10:25:19 -0800 Received: from mail42-ch1-R.bigfish.com (10.43.68.249) by CH1EHSOBE020.bigfish.com (10.43.70.77) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:55 +0000 Received: from mail42-ch1 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail42-ch1-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0294160364 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.245.197; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:CH1PRD0511HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: 1 X-BigFish: PS1(zzbb2dI98dI9371Izz1de0h1202h1d1ah1d2ahzz8275chz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0l1155h) Received: from mail42-ch1 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail42-ch1 (MessageSwitch) id 1352744573761617_26695; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1EHSMHS028.bigfish.com (snatpool2.int.messaging.microsoft.com [10.43.68.232]) by mail42-ch1.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6FB14E00E9; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1PRD0511HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.245.197) by CH1EHSMHS028.bigfish.com (10.43.70.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:51 +0000 Received: from CH1PRD0511MB407.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.55]) by CH1PRD0511HT005.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.159.40]) with mapi id 14.16.0233.004; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:51 +0000 From: Kent Watsen To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" , Netconf Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track Thread-Index: AQHNvcx1mYg3KIaOn06LUD04yO76GJfmKumA Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:22:51 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.255.159.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <2EC05BF1959BC644B2655E7D6AB4C703@namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%BWIJNEN.NET$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:27:06 -0000 +1 On 11/8/12 11:15 AM, "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" wrote: >This is a call for consensus to do the work that is >required to advance these from Proposed Standard >to Internet Standard: > From kwatsen@juniper.net Mon Nov 12 12:36:06 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016BD21F875C for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:06 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.467 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.467 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNRESOLVED_TEMPLATE=3.132] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lsr1IlH7iauB for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from exprod7og111.obsmtp.com (exprod7og111.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.175]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B51921F86EC for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net ([66.129.224.36]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob111.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUKFdtLwlN0vu0yqdoh0yNzBmJZrpv7Sg@postini.com; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:36:05 PST Received: from P-CLDFE02-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.60) by P-EMHUB01-HQ.jnpr.net (172.24.192.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.213.0; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:34:07 -0800 Received: from o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) by o365mail.juniper.net (172.24.192.60) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:34:06 -0800 Received: from va3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com (216.32.180.31) by o365mail.juniper.net (207.17.137.224) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 12:41:04 -0800 Received: from mail265-va3-R.bigfish.com (10.7.14.242) by VA3EHSOBE008.bigfish.com (10.7.40.28) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:34:05 +0000 Received: from mail265-va3 (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail265-va3-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D1E21601A7 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:34:05 +0000 (UTC) X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:157.56.245.197; KIP:(null); UIP:(null); (null); H:CH1PRD0511HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; R:internal; EFV:INT X-SpamScore: 3 X-BigFish: PS3(zz4015Izz1de0h1202h1d1ah1d2ahzzz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah1220h1288h12a5h12a9h12bdh137ah13b6h1441h1504h1537h153bh15d0l1155h) Received: from mail265-va3 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail265-va3 (MessageSwitch) id 1352752442931044_15644; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from VA3EHSMHS014.bigfish.com (unknown [10.7.14.244]) by mail265-va3.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF9A71080058 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:34:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from CH1PRD0511HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (157.56.245.197) by VA3EHSMHS014.bigfish.com (10.7.99.24) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.225.23; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:34:01 +0000 Received: from CH1PRD0511MB407.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.5.55]) by CH1PRD0511HT001.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.255.159.36]) with mapi id 14.16.0233.002; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:34:01 +0000 From: Kent Watsen To: Netconf Thread-Topic: guidelines from interop test event Thread-Index: AQHNwRUMivzlwweh0E+aoRV9y3TW1w== Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:34:00 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.4.120824 x-originating-ip: [10.255.159.4] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <5B3862E37298DA47A71B5931CA92BC30@namprd05.prod.outlook.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%0$Dn%*$RO%0$TLS%0$FQDN%$TlsDn% X-FOPE-CONNECTOR: Id%12219$Dn%IETF.ORG$RO%2$TLS%5$FQDN%onpremiseedge-1018244.customer.frontbridge.com$TlsDn%o365mail.juniper.net Subject: [Netconf] guidelines from interop test event X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 20:36:06 -0000 Here are a couple guidelines based on some things noticed during the interop event: 1. A 1.1 server SHOULD close the NETCONF session if it receives anything other than a message at the beginning of a NETCONF session. 2. XML comments are allowed in any XML message. Comments may come before, after, or anywhere in-between an XML message. XML comments have no semantic value and may be ignored by any NETCONF peer. Thoughts? Thanks, Kent From lhotka@nic.cz Tue Nov 13 03:45:07 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13BF21F8499 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:45:07 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_23=0.6] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QwHziFBFcWur for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:45:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from trail.lhotka.name (trail.lhotka.name [77.48.224.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0E9D21F843F for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 03:45:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC830540634; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:44:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from trail.lhotka.name ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (trail.lhotka.name [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GwgyZ+4rTGzo; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:44:53 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (unknown [217.31.207.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by trail.lhotka.name (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C337E54030F; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:44:48 +0100 (CET) From: Ladislav Lhotka To: "Bert Wijnen \(IETF\)" , Netconf In-Reply-To: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.14+37~gf227d63 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.50.1 (i386-apple-darwin9.8.0) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:44:50 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:45:07 -0000 +1 Lada "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: > Dear WG participants, > > This is a call for consensus to do the work that is > required to advance these from Proposed Standard > to Internet Standard: > > - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol > - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH > - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf > - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications > - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability > - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model > > Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). > > Background. > At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the > Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol > documents. As you can read in the slides at > > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.pdf > > we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations > (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all > mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. > > So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that > we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the > documents on the standards track. > > The set that is under consideration is as follows: > > Netconf Protocol Documents: > - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 > - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) > > In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and > no objections. > > So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm > (or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this > work. > > We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, > I will ask for input on that in a separate email. > > Bert and Mehmet > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf -- Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: E74E8C0C From matjaz@mg-soft.si Thu Nov 15 01:21:19 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F93521F8614 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:21:18 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JUv3UIRo-xDm for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:21:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from gate.mg-soft.si (gate.mg-soft.si [212.30.73.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6EA021F85C4 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:21:15 -0800 (PST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mg-soft.si [10.0.0.15]) by gate.mg-soft.si (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qAF9LDTI027759; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:21:13 +0100 Message-ID: <50A4B401.20803@mg-soft.si> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 10:21:05 +0100 From: Matjaz Vrecko Organization: MG-SOFT Corp. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120306 Thunderbird/3.1.20 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" , Netconf References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: Matjaz Vrecko List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 09:21:19 -0000 +1 Matjaz On 08-Nov-2012 5:15 PM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: > Dear WG participants, > > This is a call for consensus to do the work that is > required to advance these from Proposed Standard > to Internet Standard: > > - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol > - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH > - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf > - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications > - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability > - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model > > Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). > > Background. > At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the > Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol > documents. As you can read in the slides at > > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.pdf > > we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations > (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all > mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. > > So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that > we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the > documents on the standards track. > > The set that is under consideration is as follows: > > Netconf Protocol Documents: > - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 > - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) > > In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and > no objections. > > So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm > (or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this > work. > > We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, > I will ask for input on that in a separate email. > > Bert and Mehmet > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf -- Matjaz Vrecko MG-SOFT Corporation, Strma ulica 8, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia Internet: http://www.mg-soft.si/ E-mail: Phone: +386 2 2506565, Fax: +386 2 2506566 From wwwrun@rfc-editor.org Thu Nov 15 04:38:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4238821F887A for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:38:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.054 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.054 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.546, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eiYyqpYbUO-0 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:38:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [IPv6:2001:1890:123a::1:2f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC8AE21F853D for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:38:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by rfc-editor.org (Postfix, from userid 30) id 963F6B1E004; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:31:43 -0800 (PST) To: andy@yumaworks.com, mbj@tail-f.com, rbonica@juniper.net, bclaise@cisco.com, bertietf@bwijnen.net, mehmet.ersue@nsn.com From: RFC Errata System Message-Id: <20121115123143.963F6B1E004@rfc-editor.org> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 04:31:43 -0800 (PST) Cc: netconf@ietf.org, jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.com, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org Subject: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6536 (3409) X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 12:38:46 -0000 The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6536, "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model". -------------------------------------- You may review the report below and at: http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6536&eid=3409 -------------------------------------- Type: Technical Reported by: Jernej Tuljak Section: 3.4.6 Original Text ------------- * The rule does not have a "rule-type" defined or the "rule- type" is "notification" and the "notification-name" is "*" and equals the name of the notification. Corrected Text -------------- * The rule does not have a "rule-type" defined or the "rule- type" is "notification" and the "notification-name" is "*" or equals the name of the notification. Notes ----- The "notification-name" element may either have a value of "*" OR contains the name of the notification. This typo appears in section 3.4.6, authorization step 7, second bullet. Instructions: ------------- This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. -------------------------------------- RFC6536 (draft-ietf-netconf-access-control-07) -------------------------------------- Title : Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model Publication Date : March 2012 Author(s) : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund Category : PROPOSED STANDARD Source : Network Configuration Area : Operations and Management Stream : IETF Verifying Party : IESG From mbj@tail-f.com Thu Nov 15 06:41:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 620FB21F86D1 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:41:25 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.046 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.046 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yCJTWJDeyQcE for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.tail-f.com (de-2007.d.ipeer.se [213.180.74.102]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3EA921F869A for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 06:41:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (138.162.241.83.in-addr.dgcsystems.net [83.241.162.138]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B8021200045; Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:41:22 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:41:22 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20121115.154122.2030653405014758284.mbj@tail-f.com> To: rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org From: Martin Bjorklund In-Reply-To: <20121115123143.963F6B1E004@rfc-editor.org> References: <20121115123143.963F6B1E004@rfc-editor.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5rc2 on Emacs 23.4 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: rbonica@juniper.net, netconf@ietf.org, jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.com Subject: Re: [Netconf] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6536 (3409) X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 14:41:25 -0000 Hi, The proposed new text is correct. /martin RFC Errata System wrote: > > The following errata report has been submitted for RFC6536, > "Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model". > > -------------------------------------- > You may review the report below and at: > http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6536&eid=3409 > > -------------------------------------- > Type: Technical > Reported by: Jernej Tuljak > > Section: 3.4.6 > > Original Text > ------------- > * The rule does not have a "rule-type" defined or the "rule- > type" is "notification" and the "notification-name" is "*" > and equals the name of the notification. > > Corrected Text > -------------- > * The rule does not have a "rule-type" defined or the "rule- > type" is "notification" and the "notification-name" is "*" > or equals the name of the notification. > > Notes > ----- > The "notification-name" element may either have a value of "*" OR contains the name of the notification. This typo appears in section 3.4.6, authorization step 7, second bullet. > > Instructions: > ------------- > This errata is currently posted as "Reported". If necessary, please > use "Reply All" to discuss whether it should be verified or > rejected. When a decision is reached, the verifying party (IESG) > can log in to change the status and edit the report, if necessary. > > -------------------------------------- > RFC6536 (draft-ietf-netconf-access-control-07) > -------------------------------------- > Title : Network Configuration Protocol (NETCONF) Access Control Model > Publication Date : March 2012 > Author(s) : A. Bierman, M. Bjorklund > Category : PROPOSED STANDARD > Source : Network Configuration > Area : Operations and Management > Stream : IETF > Verifying Party : IESG > From mehmet.ersue@nsn.com Tue Nov 20 08:25:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C677621F8711 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:25:00 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.532 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.532 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.067, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dJX6718wYN1N for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:25:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A04021F8528 for ; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 08:24:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.129.55]) by demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qAKGOoGt018832 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:24:50 +0100 Received: from demuexc023.nsn-intra.net (demuexc023.nsn-intra.net [10.150.128.36]) by demuprx016.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id qAKGOjuh018245; Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:24:49 +0100 Received: from DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net ([10.150.128.18]) by demuexc023.nsn-intra.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:24:28 +0100 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 17:24:27 +0100 Message-ID: <80A0822C5E9A4440A5117C2F4CD36A640469F1EC@DEMUEXC006.nsn-intra.net> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Draft minutes of the IETF 85 NETCONF Session Thread-Index: Ac3HO4LAUqFagqagSnK27yXsTDLn3w== From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2012 16:24:28.0814 (UTC) FILETIME=[83943AE0:01CDC73B] X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R) http://www.eleven.de X-purgate: clean X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit http://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate-size: 301 X-purgate-ID: 151667::1353428690-000010BC-20AC2CA1/0-0/0-0 Subject: [Netconf] Draft minutes of the IETF 85 NETCONF Session X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2012 16:25:00 -0000 Dear NETCONF WG, draft minutes of the IETF 85 NETCONF WG Session are available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/85/minutes/minutes-85-netconf=20 Please send us your comments by December 3, 2012. Many thanks to our minute takers: Lada Lhotka and Juergen Schoenwaelder. Mehmet & Bert From bertietf@bwijnen.net Wed Nov 21 01:19:23 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8692B21F859D for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:19:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.464 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.464 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.135, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UQHIHu9MZxSJ for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:19:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AECE21F84CA for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:19:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tb6Sg-00086S-Uc for netconf@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:19:16 +0100 Received: from cat.ripe.net ([193.0.1.249] helo=BWMACBOOK.local) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Tb6Sg-0001n3-Nq for netconf@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:19:14 +0100 Message-ID: <50AC9C92.3030805@bwijnen.net> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:19:14 +0100 From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Netconf References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.48/RELEASE, bases: 20120425 #7816575, check: 20121121 clean X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd49c3f74b6a966e5977ace1c27829c3abb Subject: [Netconf] Reminder: Action before 23 Nov 2012: WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 09:19:23 -0000 Reminder that this WG LC ends on 23rd of Nov. Hope it does not ruin your ThanksGiving in USA. Bert -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:15:00 -0500 From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) To: Netconf Dear WG participants, This is a call for consensus to do the work that is required to advance these from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard: - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). Background. At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol documents. As you can read in the slides at http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.pdf we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the documents on the standards track. The set that is under consideration is as follows: Netconf Protocol Documents: - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and no objections. So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm (or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this work. We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, I will ask for input on that in a separate email. Bert and Mehmet _______________________________________________ Netconf mailing list Netconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf From dromasca@avaya.com Wed Nov 21 04:52:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 944A221F8838 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:52:23 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.915 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.915 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.316, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bJWp8pSFiuYl for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:52:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com (p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com [135.11.29.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE4C421F85D5 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 04:52:22 -0800 (PST) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgEFAAEvoFDGmAcF/2dsb2JhbABEgmzAaYEIgh4BAQEBAQIBAQEPCx00FwQCAQgNBAMBAQELFAUEBycLFAkIAgQBEggah2gBCp4mnAGMFYVpYQOXGIRxijaCb4FkNQ X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,759,1344225600"; d="scan'208";a="37059234" Received: from unknown (HELO co300216-co-erhwest.avaya.com) ([198.152.7.5]) by p-us1-iereast-outbound.us1.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2012 07:44:19 -0500 Received: from unknown (HELO DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com) ([135.11.52.35]) by co300216-co-erhwest-out.avaya.com with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2012 07:49:22 -0500 Received: from AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com (135.64.58.12) by DC-US1HCEX4.global.avaya.com (135.11.52.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.3.83.0; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:51:36 -0500 Received: from AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com ([fe80::6db7:b0af:8480:c126]) by AZ-FFEXHC02.global.avaya.com ([135.64.58.12]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 07:51:35 -0500 From: "Romascanu, Dan (Dan)" To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" , Netconf Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Reminder: Action before 23 Nov 2012: WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track Thread-Index: AQHNx8lX3W3AQqNVx06vPpF0+PDBRJf0PQlA Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:51:34 +0000 Message-ID: <9904FB1B0159DA42B0B887B7FA8119CA011639@AZ-FFEXMB04.global.avaya.com> References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> <50AC9C92.3030805@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: <50AC9C92.3030805@bwijnen.net> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [135.64.58.46] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Netconf] Reminder: Action before 23 Nov 2012: WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 12:52:24 -0000 The interoperability event showed that there is a sufficient number of inde= pendent implementations that interoperate. I am fine with the advancement o= f these documents to Internet Standard, provided that the information that = will be gathered shows that the condition of widespread deployment is also = met.=20 Regards, Dan > -----Original Message----- > From: netconf-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Bert Wijnen (IETF) > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2012 11:19 AM > To: Netconf > Subject: [Netconf] Reminder: Action before 23 Nov 2012: WG Call for > consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track >=20 > Reminder that this WG LC ends on 23rd of Nov. >=20 > Hope it does not ruin your ThanksGiving in USA. >=20 > Bert >=20 > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol > docs on standards track > Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:15:00 -0500 > From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) > To: Netconf >=20 > Dear WG participants, >=20 > This is a call for consensus to do the work that is required to advance > these from Proposed Standard to Internet Standard: >=20 > - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol > - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH > - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf > - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications > - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability > - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model >=20 > Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). >=20 > Background. > At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the Interoperability > testing of the set of NetConf protocol documents. As you can read in the > slides at >=20 > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.pdf >=20 > we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations > (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all > mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. >=20 > So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that we can > send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the documents on the > standards track. >=20 > The set that is under consideration is as follows: >=20 > Netconf Protocol Documents: > - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 > - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) >=20 > In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and no > objections. >=20 > So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm (or object) > that we have consensus to move forward with this work. >=20 > We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, I will > ask for input on that in a separate email. >=20 > Bert and Mehmet > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf From xiangli@seguesoft.com Wed Nov 21 08:25:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C75D221F86D2 for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:25:46 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MVCUIHMYrd8Z for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:25:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.37]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 89B3621F86AB for ; Wed, 21 Nov 2012 08:25:45 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 10078 invoked from network); 21 Nov 2012 16:25:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (98.212.151.151) by smtpauth13.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.37) with ESMTP; 21 Nov 2012 16:25:39 -0000 Message-ID: <50AD0082.9080705@seguesoft.com> Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 10:25:38 -0600 From: Xiang Li User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: netconf@ietf.org References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:25:46 -0000 +1 "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" writes: >> Dear WG participants, >> >> This is a call for consensus to do the work that is >> required to advance these from Proposed Standard >> to Internet Standard: >> >> - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol >> - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH >> - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf >> - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications >> - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability >> - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model >> >> Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). >> >> Background. >> At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the >> Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol >> documents. As you can read in the slides at >> >> http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.pdf >> >> we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations >> (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all >> mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. >> >> So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that >> we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the >> documents on the standards track. >> >> The set that is under consideration is as follows: >> >> Netconf Protocol Documents: >> - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 >> - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) >> >> In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and >> no objections. >> >> So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm >> (or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this >> work. >> >> We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, >> I will ask for input on that in a separate email. >> >> Bert and Mehmet >> _______________________________________________ >> Netconf mailing list >> Netconf@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf -- -- Xiang Li Web: www.seguesoft.com Voice: 1 (516) 453-5361 Cell 1 (217) 819-0942 From bertietf@bwijnen.net Wed Nov 28 23:56:56 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D918B21F89A5 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:56:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DOQiMO0F+UWg for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:56:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from postgirl.ripe.net (postgirl.ipv6.ripe.net [IPv6:2001:67c:2e8:11::c100:1342]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EDB021F8860 for ; Wed, 28 Nov 2012 23:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from ayeaye.ripe.net ([193.0.23.5]) by postgirl.ripe.net with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdyzK-0002tT-Vs for netconf@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:56:52 +0100 Received: from cat.ripe.net ([193.0.1.249] helo=BWMACBOOK.local) by ayeaye.ripe.net with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TdyzK-0006ah-S1 for netconf@ietf.org; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:56:50 +0100 Message-ID: <50B71542.1050506@bwijnen.net> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 08:56:50 +0100 From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Netconf References: <509BDA84.2010805@bwijnen.net> <50AC9C92.3030805@bwijnen.net> In-Reply-To: <50AC9C92.3030805@bwijnen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Anti-Virus: Kaspersky Anti-Virus for Linux Mail Server 5.6.48/RELEASE, bases: 20120425 #7816575, check: 20121129 clean X-RIPE-Spam-Level: -- X-RIPE-Spam-Report: Spam Total Points: -2.9 points pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -1.0 ALL_TRUSTED Passed through trusted hosts only via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-RIPE-Signature: 86ab03e524994f79ca2c75a176445dd4b3960abd280785d29daa73d241df1ece Subject: [Netconf] Closed, we have consensus: WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:56:57 -0000 WG participants, We've not had any objections or concerns regarding is WG call for consensus. Instead we got a reasonable amount of expressions of support. So we will bring this to our WG charter via our AD. In fact it is already part of the WG charter, given these current nilestones: Nov 2012 Collect Implementation/Deployment reports for RFC6241 and 6242 Dec 2012 Initial I-D for RFC6241/6242 implementation/deployment experience Jan 2013 WGLC on RFC6241/6242 implementation/deployment experience Feb 2013 possibly submit RFC6241/6242 implementation/deployment experience doc to IESG for publication as Informational RFC Bert On 11/21/12 10:19 AM, Bert Wijnen (IETF) wrote: > Reminder that this WG LC ends on 23rd of Nov. > > Hope it does not ruin your ThanksGiving in USA. > > Bert > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [Netconf] WG Call for consensus to advance NetConf protocol docs on standards track > Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 11:15:00 -0500 > From: Bert Wijnen (IETF) > To: Netconf > > Dear WG participants, > > This is a call for consensus to do the work that is > required to advance these from Proposed Standard > to Internet Standard: > > - RFC 6241, Netconf Protocol > - RFC 6242, Netconf over SSH > - RFC 5717, Partial Lock for NetConf > - RFC 5277, Netconf Event Notifications > - RFC 6243, Netconf with Defaults capability > - RFC 6536, Netconf Access Control Model > > Please respond no later than 23rd of November (any timezone). > > Background. > At our netconf session at IETF85, I reported on the > Interoperability testing of the set of NetConf protocol > documents. As you can read in the slides at > > http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/85/slides/slides-85-netconf-3.pdf > > we did find a large set of genetically independent implementations > (10 clients and 5 servers) that successfully inter-operated on all > mandatory items and also on all optional capabilities. > > So we asked the room if we should compile this into a report that > we can send to the IESG with a request for advancement of the > documents on the standards track. > > The set that is under consideration is as follows: > > Netconf Protocol Documents: > - 6241, 6242, 5717, 5277, 6243 > - 6536 (needs bit more testing in the next few months) > > In the WG session we saw/heard good support for that work and > no objections. > > So to this email we ask all NETCONF participants to confirm > (or object) that we have consensus to move forward with this > work. > > We will need to collect data on deployment of those protocols, > I will ask for input on that in a separate email. > > Bert and Mehmet > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > From andy@yumaworks.com Fri Nov 30 14:27:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C35421F859A for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:27:22 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZeQEJ+sSmIAY for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:27:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vb0-f54.google.com (mail-vb0-f54.google.com [209.85.212.54]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B3E21F85D4 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:27:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-vb0-f54.google.com with SMTP id l1so14125289vba.27 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:27:21 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=2MYM4kLKfoM1Jd8yAeEnW0gwfI6xEoJLlkYjm9gZZCI=; b=VrH22bF0Y++PxJndZuespofsWBt58yAFabNcsdqPGFND8I/xWMV48Fx3Gog6aVY1Cl Bthi1R3jLi46ZRF6FtCzKNcxkK4Bm3uxiPOhbjl0mpl3KSR2TIYDb4IFs5BpA+nSJo5t 3s90v5Q21sOdpCJCB5ykcmX96JD3H7hwJQx7YJulDJzGOzRyVzzkopt8qfY01ybvesrg ovIhwdxWflqN+LxG4GuVnXJ4MYAjFnr83Th7E89s67Czy/RRV7A//bws/fddgE8WqH2u 551uAC4tph2OORjyiqz2mc6bq1mp3YpDORbnQaMRdJCFIaVhJTwCB2en94Kgp1Ga4ZVR Ll0Q== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.98.105 with SMTP id eh9mr2062833vdb.11.1354314441167; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:27:21 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.58.69.14 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:27:21 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20121130222344.14056.57485.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> References: <20121130222344.14056.57485.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:27:21 -0800 Message-ID: From: Andy Bierman To: Netconf , netmod@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307f319e2e12c104cfbde7cd X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmY6uc8h2smmCbEy06uQxy5KSWov71oSPBsdRI+zg8OZSobh1w3ik3F0gdIhSEa92VVcg3a Subject: [Netconf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01.txt X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:27:22 -0000 --20cf307f319e2e12c104cfbde7cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 FYI, The YANG-API draft has been updated and made much simpler. Andy ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM Subject: New Version Notification for draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01.txt To: andy@yumaworks.com Cc: mbj@tail-f.com A new version of I-D, draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01.txt has been successfully submitted by Andy Bierman and posted to the IETF repository. Filename: draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api Revision: 01 Title: YANG-API Protocol Creation date: 2012-11-30 WG ID: Individual Submission Number of pages: 68 URL: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01.txt Status: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api Htmlized: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01 Diff: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01 Abstract: This document describes a RESTful protocol that provides a programmatic interface over HTTP for accessing data defined in YANG, using the datastores defined in NETCONF. The IETF Secretariat --20cf307f319e2e12c104cfbde7cd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable FYI,

The YANG-API draft has been updated and made much s= impler.


Andy


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <internet-drafts@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 2:23 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for= draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01.txt
To: andy@yumaworks.com
Cc: mb= j@tail-f.com



A new version of I-D, draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01.txt
has been successfully submitted by Andy Bierman and posted to the
IETF repository.

Filename: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api
Revision: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A001
Title: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 YANG-API Protocol
Creation date: =C2=A0 2012-11-30
WG ID: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Individual Submission
Number of pages: 68
URL: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01.txt<= /a>
Status: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://datatrac= ker.ietf.org/doc/draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api
Htmlized: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://tools.ietf.org/= html/draft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01
Diff: =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http= ://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-bierman-netconf-yang-api-01

Abstract:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0This document describes a RESTful protocol that provides a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0programmatic interface over HTTP for accessing data defined in= YANG,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0using the datastores defined in NETCONF.




The IETF Secretariat


--20cf307f319e2e12c104cfbde7cd--