Meeting start: 8 Sept 2014, 17:11 UTC Meeting end: 8 Sept 2014, 19:05 UTC Chair: Bert Wijnen Attendees: Juergen Schoenwaelder Ladislav Lhotka Martin Bjorklund Kent Watsen Andy Bierman Michael Scharf Mahesh Jethanandani Alberto Gonzalez Prieto Benoit CLaise (AD) Regrets: Mehmet Ersue (co-chair, vacation) Hide quoted text > Dear WG participants, we had our first virtual interim meeting yesterday. > here are the draft minutes (thanks to Kent for taking notes, amended/merged > with my own notes): > > The meetings run from 8 Sept - 3 Nov 2014. Biweekly on Mondays from 7pm-9pm > CET (Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris). That is 17:00-19:00 UTC. They are webex based > meetings. We have decided last night to record the meetings. But the WG chair(s) > will ensure at the start of every meeting that everyone is aware and that > nobody objects. The recording of yesterdays meeting is here: > > Streaming recording link: > https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/ldr.php?RCID=2fd2a151d4ef7ebe95f310880f92fdad > Download recording link: > https://ietf.webex.com/ietf/lsr.php?RCID=b57f37cff1571be1061b1963a16bd472 > > - The main objective of the call is to help us (WG) move faster on our > chartered work items. RESTCONF is a big piece of that. Whatever we want > to decide must be verified on the WG mailing list. Of course some discussion > end up in changes to a document, which will always be presented to the WG > mailing list and which will eventually be Last Called, so everyone has a say. > > - We had 10 participants on the call > > - Kent presented GitHub, which is used to track issues and which also > is used by various editors to work together on the documents > * DECISION: We will NOT forward all changes in GITHUB to the WG > mailing list. > * Pull-requests for editorial changes are OK, > * but more substantial issues (in fact all issues) should be discussed > on our NETCONF WG mailing list. We can use github to keep track of the > status and to record summaries, proposed solutions and the final > resolution. > > - Andy presented RESTCONF issues > see: https://github.com/netconf-wg/restconf/issues > We discussed them in reverse order (will try to get them properly > discussed in order next time). I (Bert) have added all issues, > also those that were created new as a result o the virtual meeting and > those that were not discussed. If you want to comment or voice an > opinion on any issue (that would be VERY GOOD and HELPFUL), then pls > set the subject line to the issue number plus issue title. > > * issue # 10: Naming convention for Query Parameters > o opened by Bert as a result of our first virual meeting > o split off from issue # 6 > * issue # 9: Define how authentication is performed > o opened by Andy as a result of our first virtual meeting > * issue #7: Mandatory-to-implement encoding > o WG chairs did a poll on the WG list for opinions: > see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg09218.html > It runs till Sept 18, so those who have not expressed an opinion yet > are encouraged to do so. > o For now, "Optional" encoding (choice d) got more votes than "XML mandatory" > (choice a). > o Martin mentions technical motivations were expressed with choice 'a' > o Bert reminded that STANDARDIZATION means making choices and making interoperability > easy. From that point of view, choice a seems more appropriate. > o ACTION: Bert will send reminder to collect more opinions (done) > * issue #6: how to identify query parameters supported by the server > o No prefix for ietf-defined (this is naming, see new issue #10) > o We basically have 2 issues, one is Naming,the other is discovery of which > parameters are supported by the server. So issue #6 stays as is, > issue #10 opened by Bert for Naming conventions > o Capability encoding in the air: Lada is thinking a json object > o Proposal to collapse into a single URI string > o Opinions of other WG participants are welcome! Please speak up > * issue #5: protocol capability URIs > o was not discussed on this call > o Toronto consensus: Add protocol capabilities somehow > o so we need to see new text in a revision of the draft > *issue #4: Defaults handling > o Mapping to RESTCONF straight forward > o the server MUST report what basic-mode it supports > o Question: Should full support of with-defaults RFC be added to base RESTCONF? > Please speak up and express opinions? > * issue #3: add collection resource > o Put collections media-type and query-parameters into main draft, but? > o There seems to be consensus to put collections resource in another document. > o Need to deal with GET on a list with no keys given: > GET /restconf/data/interfaces/interface > --> Maybe this will be an error unless collection resource requested > o Need text proposals on mailing list. > * issue #2 Netconf state monitoring > o Need to create an issue for authentication > (done by Andy, that is issue #9 > o Do we need to have a 6022-bis document or can RESTCONF just update the text > in order to support non-NETCONF sessions. > o An idea is to let this doc "update" RFC 6022 > * issue #1: Select parameter > o What syntax should be used for the "select" query parameter? The > current choices are "XPath" and "path-expr". Perhaps an > additional parameter to identify the select string format is > needed to allow extensibility? > o Martin's proposal stands...issue seems closed > o WG participants, please speak up if you cannot live with > Martin's proposal, see > https://github.com/netconf-wg/restconf/issues/1 > > - A question was raised by Mahesh, regarding CLI type uses as ping and traceroute. > He was asked to post the problem statement to the WG list, which he has done now > see: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg09254.html > > - Next time we will discuss restconf issues again, but also: call-home. > It seems like a good idea to then have the accompanying documents updated as well, > so: > o ACTION: Juergen should update 5539bis > 0 ACTION: Kent to submit server-model > > Bert Wijnen, with special thanks to Kent and Andy.