Here are the minutes of the NETCONF Virtual Meeting held on December 15, 2014 Agenda of the virtual interim meeting on December 15,2014 1700-1900 UTC ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Agenda is also available at: http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/interim/2014/12/15/netconf/agenda/agenda-interim-2014-netconf-5 - 5 min chair intro, scribe, agenda bashing The note takingwill be done on: http://beta.etherpad.org/p/netconf-z Issue discussion and status check per WG item: - Call Home (Kent) (5min) Currently no openissues. See https://github.com/netconf-wg/call-home/issues - Server Model (Kent) (20min) Currently 5 openissues. See https://github.com/netconf-wg/server-model/issues - rfc5539bis (Juergen) (5min) The two issues decided in IETF 91 are in preparation. - Restconf (Andy) (30min) Currently 4 openissues. See https://github.com/netconf-wg/restconf/issues - Zerotouch (Kent) (20min) Currently 1 openissues. https://github.com/netconf-wg/yang-patch/issues - I2RS Ephemeral state (Susan, Jeff) (30min) Please provideslides before the meeting. - 5 min AOB other topics Attendees: - Mehmet Ersue - Mahesh Jethanandani - Kent Watsen - Lada Lhotka - Juergen Schoenwaelder - Hannes Tschofenig - Alex Kolchinsky - Alan Luchuk - Reinaldo Penno - Ignas Bagdonas - Susan Hares - Alberto Gonzales (presented on I2RS draft) - Andy Bierman Call Home Draft: Three open issues #8 Add RFC-Editor instructions for removing XXXX and Port-X placeholders Mehmet added instructions on how to update the IANA section. No WG consensus needed. Issue can be closed after updating and posting of the draft. #7 Remove the "FIXME" in section 1.3 (Applicability Statement) Last Note from Kent indicates there is a dependency on RESTCONF draft update. No WG consensus needed. Kent to update the issue and the draft?? #6 Too busy with all the NETCONF/RESTCONF and SSH/TLS switches? Latest update indicates (and reflects in the notes below) that few people have read the draft. The WG felt it would be better to keep it as one and Andy suggested that it would be better to split paragraphs if necessary rather than split the draft. Kent to push on the issue of whether this should be one or two (with RESTCONF Call Home being the second draft) on the mailing list. Server Model Draft: Four open issues: #26 fix default listen port for RESTCONF server Kent was clarifying that 443 is the default port and the draft will be updated. #24 add NACM statement Discussed during virtual interim meeting on Dec 15. Hannes Tschofenig agreed that client-trust-certs are essentially the same as a password and hence should be treated the same. Suggestion is to post concrete proposal to list for review. #21 Add a feature around the global-params section Discussed during virtual interim meeting on Dec 15. Suggestion is to post a link to change in text to list for review with a 1-week timeout limit. #18 how to configure trust-anchors for SSH X.509-based client certs? Discussed during virtual interim meeting on Dec 15. Suggestion is to post a link to change in text to list for review with a 1-week timeout limit. RFC5539bis: Juergen was not on the call (at the time) to discuss the draft. RESTCONF draft: 9 open issues Too many issues and comments to paste here. Please refer to GitHub for details here. https://github.com/netconf-wg/restconf/issues?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Aissue Zero Touch draft: One open issue #5 Validate if Vendors can support owner-validation service Discussed during virtual interim meeting on Dec 15. Request is for members to ask their constituent companies if they're able to support an owner-verification service. Email with request to be sent to list. i2rs discussion: Alberto presented pub/sub draft. Jeff Hass was not able to attend the meeting. Susan joined and gave an update on the e-mail discussion, but the discussion was deferred till Jeff can join in the next meeting. And here are the meeting minutes: [mj] Started discussion on Call Home draft [mj] 3 open issues and 4 closed issues [mj] First closed issues. Started with Add TLS transport. Very old issue. [mj] WG consensus granted. [mj] Reverse SSH renamed to Call Home. [mj] No objection from the chairs. But the objection has to be reflected on the mailing list. This is a general guidance. [mj] Andy commented on the process being tedious. Mehmet suggested that mailing list consensus can be skipped if draft is updated, posted on the mailing list and consensus achieved. [mj] Kent commented on editorial comments. Mehmet suggested that it should have the same approach. [mj] Discussing open issues now. [mj] Proposal to have a combined NETCONF and RESTCONF draft for call-home. No objections. Andy says he has read the latest version. [mj] Now discussing server-model. [mj] Add support for RESTCONF (#10) was discussed in 91 and so was most of the cases with other issues. [mj] Moved two of the issues out of closed to open issues. [mj] #21 Add a feature around the global-params section. Kent has a proposed solution. Mehmet suggested that the solution be posted on the mailing list and give a week deadline. #18 how to configure trust-anchors. Not captured by AI in 91. Issue with SSH and X.509 based client certs. NETCONF has to validate the SSH X.509 client certificates. TLS has client-auth and the tree under it. It has been replciated to SSH section. Alan seconds the motion. #24 Add NACM statement. Was not discussed in 91. New issue. When ietf-tls-* was taken out had to put if statements around NACM statements to put protections around it. Hannes agreed.If the user is authenticated then it is authorized. No solution as yet. #28 What is the RESTCONF server port? It is not set to 443. TLS. Juergen is not in the meeting. Juergen had asked for comments on the mailing list. Mehmet will call out on the mailing list. Discussing RESTCONF draft now. 7 open and 9 closed issues. #1 select parameter. Andy will send something to the mailing list and not in -04 draft. Issue will be reopened. #2 NETCONF-state support. Remove references to session. Support for S0. Mail to the maillist has been sent. #3 collection resources. Authors suggest moving it to a new draft. No consensus on the solution and the draft is incomplete. Issues with spinning out into a new draft. Mehmet feels it should be in one draft. Wants more discussion before deciding whether to split out. AI for Mehmet to send out on the mailing list. Alan thinks it should be split. Andy points out that the collection is completely optional and is holding up the draft. Alex has updated the GitHub with his changes. Asked to post on the mailing list. #4 default handling. Confirming what was discussed in 91. #9 Still open. Kent is working on text. #13 ietf-yang-library. No change. Kent suggests taking it to the mailing list. #14 define module-name prefixing rules. Used by Kent for tracking?? #15 use of groupings in ietf-restconf. Lada raised issue with the proposed solution S2-B. No agreement on the solution. Namespace used is different per proposal. Should be taken to the mailing list. Chair will decide as a last resort. Kent tried using grouping in zero-touch and received similar comments. #16 content parameters. Should be made mandatory. Will be posted to the list. yang-patch draft being discussed now. Two open issues. On the agenda because of RESTCONF. Value node for XML can be used as leaf??. Andy to take it to the mailing list. Structure of dit value anyxml. Will take it to the mailing list. #2 Parsing QNames in value parameter anyxml. No solution in YANG 1.0. Address in YANG 1.1? Lada agrees. [me] This draft will be published before YANG 1.1. S we need a solution for this draft. Kent suggests treating it as a blob. Andy thinks you lose information that way. Andy to take it to the mailing list. Discussing Zero Touch draft now. Closed issues before 91. Only one open issue. Validate if Vendors can support owner-validation service. Vendors need to come up with owner-validation service. Need to go to a configlit service. The service needs to validate the vendor is the owner. Is it implementable with partners? Kent to ask how Juniper would implement it. Asks other vendors to do the same. Cisco, Ericsson and Ciena are looking into using zero-touch. Mehmet has asked anima WG for placing requirements to NETCONF. Hannes agrees that it should be resolved between the WGs. Mehmet suggest LC on call-home and server-model. Kent says server-model has normative references to other drafts. Mehmet says cannot be published but we can proceed with LC. Restconf and yang-patch to follow. Kent to publish next version on call-home and server-model this week. Chairs to wait till January to ask for LC. Alberto Gonzales presents on pub/sub model requirements. Suggests a push model vs. poll based. i2rs needs a more robust model. Support for different transports. Starting with Netconf based on i2rs requirements. Kent suggests moving it to Netconf from Netmod. Mehmet suggests that the requirement be agreed in i2rs before coming to Netconf. Andy suggests that operation data changes frequently so it should be used carefully in the pub/sub model. How will it be throttled? AI for all. Please provide comments. [ME] I2RS Two protocols possibly needed - a simple and complex. Simple one focused on high-rate read operations, complex for write operations. Hannes discussing zero-touch while we wait for Susan to join the meeting to discuss i2rs ephemeral model. Two components. Discovering being one of them. Uses the trust cerficate to validate the vendor. Two different identities. Configuration server and configuration signer. It is the latter that Kent is concerned about. Susan has joined the call. But Jeff is still missing. Susan does not have the slides for discussion. Susan is providing update. Says i2rs is still discussing between simple and complex solution. Suggest folks join 1/2 hr. into the meeting. Susan reading the questions raised by Jeff on the mailing list. i2rs is placing a requirement on NETCONF with the question that Jeff has raised on the mailing with recursive YANG modelling. RFC 6095 does not have support for what i2rs is asking for in YANG 1.0 and is not on the agenda for 1.1 but can be put there if it is brought up. Susan/Jeff to articulate the requirement to Netconf WG. Mehmet suggest continue discussion on January 5 when the next Netconf virtual meeting happens.