[Netconf] netconf figure

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Thu, 13 August 2009 06:37 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99D793A685E for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:37:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.17
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.17 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.079, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BYBnxVDNCmvV for <netconf@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 913F23A6954 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:37:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.47]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5A86C007B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:32:56 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius2.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qneeQ7vgheQf; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:32:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.iuhb02.iu-bremen.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D23A7C000F; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:32:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 02177C65BC3; Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:32:54 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 08:32:54 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: netconf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20090813063254.GA13273@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: netconf@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Subject: [Netconf] netconf figure
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 06:37:43 -0000

Hi,

the netconf figure in RFC 4741 is outdated. The YANG usage guidelines
document contains a different figure:

          Layer                Example
         +-------------+   +--------------------+ +-------------------+
     (4) |   Content   |   | Configuration data | | Notification data |
         +-------------+   +--------------------+ +-------------------+
                |                    |                   |
         +-------------+   +-----------------+     +---------------+
     (3) | Operations  |   |  <edit-config>  |     |  <eventType>  |
         +-------------+   +-----------------+     +---------------+
                |                    |                   |
         +-------------+   +--------------------+  +----------------+
     (2) |     RPC     |   | <rpc>, <rpc-reply> |  | <notification> |
         +-------------+   +--------------------+  +----------------+
                |                    |                   |
         +-------------+       +--------------------------------+
     (1) |  Transport  |       |  BEEP, SSH, SSL, TLS, console  |
         |   Protocol  |       |                                |
         +-------------+       +--------------------------------+

I think this is better but still can be improved. First, there is no
transport over SSL - there is only a transport over TLS. Second, there
is a published transport over SOAP. Third, I think we should order the
transports such that SSH (the mandatory to implement) comes first and
I am not sure how useful console as a transport is. My preference
would be to actually relabel the "Transport Protocol" layer to "Secure
Transport" and the "RPC" layer to "Messages" layer. So what about
this:

          Layer                Example
         +-------------+   +--------------------+ +-------------------+
     (4) |   Content   |   | Configuration data | | Notification data |
         +-------------+   +--------------------+ +-------------------+
                |                    |                   |
         +-------------+   +-----------------+     +---------------+
     (3) | Operations  |   |  <edit-config>  |     |  <eventType>  |
         +-------------+   +-----------------+     +---------------+
                |                    |                   |
         +-------------+   +--------------------+  +----------------+
     (2) |   Messages  |   | <rpc>, <rpc-reply> |  | <notification> |
         +-------------+   +--------------------+  +----------------+
                |                    |                   |
         +-------------+       +--------------------------------+
     (1) |   Secure    |       |  SSH, TLS, BEEP, SOAP, ...     |
         |  Transport  |       |                                |
         +-------------+       +--------------------------------+

Comments? I like to get the updated figure into 4741bis as the new
authoritative source of it...

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>