[Netconf] Verifing session consensus with the maillist on RFC5539bis new port and YANG module separation
"Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com> Sun, 24 November 2013 14:19 UTC
Return-Path: <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A9231AE2A2 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 06:19:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEsmRNeaNxwO for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 06:19:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from demumfd002.nsn-inter.net (demumfd002.nsn-inter.net [93.183.12.31]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18C3F1ADE88 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 06:19:53 -0800 (PST)
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 rAOEJjSN012779 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:19:45 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.33]) by demuprx017.emea.nsn-intra.net (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id rAOEJjjJ007736 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:19:45 +0100
Received: from DEMUHTC014.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.45) by DEMUHTC002.nsn-intra.net (10.159.42.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.123.3; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:19:44 +0100
Received: from DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net ([169.254.5.220]) by DEMUHTC014.nsn-intra.net ([10.159.42.45]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Sun, 24 Nov 2013 15:19:44 +0100
From: "Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)" <mehmet.ersue@nsn.com>
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Verifing session consensus with the maillist on RFC5539bis new port and YANG module separation
Thread-Index: Ac7oc7r9FFZrYtb/RTGhEIothqUEzgArBJlA
Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:19:44 +0000
Message-ID: <E4DE949E6CE3E34993A2FF8AE79131F81FE2D2@DEMUMBX005.nsn-intra.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.159.42.119]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E4DE949E6CE3E34993A2FF8AE79131F81FE2D2DEMUMBX005nsnintr_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
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: 4626
X-purgate-ID: 151667::1385302785-00006154-78DA6E72/0-0/0-0
Subject: [Netconf] Verifing session consensus with the maillist on RFC5539bis new port and YANG module separation
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 14:19:56 -0000
Dear Netconf WG, in the Netconf session during IETF #88 we discussed the draft NETCONF Over TLS update - RFC5539bis. Opinion poll of the WG concerning the use of a new port showed that many people were in favor of a new port and nobody against. The WG also decided to separate the YANG module in a new document, align with the module in Reverse SSH draft and use it for both WG items. This mail is a verification of the consensus in the session with the maillist. Please state your opinion on the use of a new port as well as separation of the YANG module in a new document. Please state your substantial and convincing arguments, if you have strong objections against. In case of the YANG module separation there is the discussion started to select between module organization options in: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg08429.html The assumption in the session was simply aligning the YANG modules from RFC5539bis and Reverse SSH, and putting in a new draft. Please state whether you prefer such a simple module separation (i.e. option #1 without any changes to RFC6242) or any other option for the module organization in the mail pointed above. This consensus call will close on December 4, 2013 EOB PT. Mehmet & Bert
- [Netconf] Verifing session consensus with the mai… Ersue, Mehmet (NSN - DE/Munich)