Subject: Re: [Netconf] Proposing a new work in the charter-//RE: Draft charter update for review

From: Kent Watsen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 12:53:06 +0000

I do think this is important work, and I think it might be related to the pub-sub work.

Interestingly, the primary reason we haven't taken it on is because we said we wanted other work to complete first.  The same was true for the pub-sub work, which was then taken to another WG, and thus now we have prioritized it.  Funny how things work out sometimes.

K.

From: <Ersue>, "Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Date: Friday, September 18, 2015 at 10:18 AM
To: "EXT Liubing (Leo)" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Cc: "[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>" <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>, Yangang <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Proposing a new work in the charter-//RE: Draft charter update for review

All,

please comment on draft-liu-netconf-multiple-replies.

Mehmet

From: EXT Liubing (Leo) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 3:23 PM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich); Netconf
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Yangang; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>'
Subject: RE: Proposing a new work in the charter-//RE: Draft charter update for review

Hi Dear Mehmet,

Maybe it’s a bit abrupt to have the proposal at this point, sorry about that.
I missed last Netconf session due to conflict of another WG which I had to go. But I do hope to hear WG’s opinions on this work. Does it make sense? Should we continue work on it?

Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Bing

From: Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 8:47 PM
To: Liubing (Leo); Netconf
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Yangang; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>'
Subject: RE: Proposing a new work in the charter-//RE: Draft charter update for review

Dear Bing,

the draft charter update, which is in AD review includes only topics which have been agreed and are known to the WG.

draft-clemm-netconf-yang-push has been approved to include as WG item in IETF #93.
There is no such WG agreement on draft-liu-netconf-multiple-replies available yet.

Mehmet

From: EXT Liubing (Leo) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 8:41 AM
To: Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich); Netconf
Cc: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>; Yangang; [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>'
Subject: Proposing a new work in the charter-//RE: Draft charter update for review

Hi Dear Chairs and all,

May I take the liberty of proposing another item that the WG might consider to include in the updated charter:

7. Develop a mechanism that allows multiple <rpc-reply> messages be associated together against one specific <rpc-request> message. This is a common requirement derived from several use cases such as buck replies, persistent replies .etc.

There is a draft-liu-netconf-multiple-replies discussing this issue. It had been presented in Netconf meeting a couple of times. And there was some supportive feedback during the presentations and mailing list discussion.

Your comments are welcomed! Thanks a lot.

Best regards,
Bing

From: Netconf [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ersue, Mehmet (Nokia - DE/Munich)
Sent: Friday, September 18, 2015 6:25 AM
To: Netconf
Subject: [Netconf] Draft charter update for review

Dear NETCONF WG,

please find below the draft charter update which we provided to our AD for review.
Comments are welcome.

Mehmet & Mahesh

------------------

Network Configuration (netconf)
-------------------------------

Charter

Current Status: Active

Chairs:
    Mahesh Jethanandani <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
    Mehmet Ersue <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Operations and Management Area Directors:
     Benoit Claise <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>
     Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Operations and Management Area Advisor:
     Benoit Claise <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>>

Mailing Lists:
     General Discussion: [email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>
     To Subscribe:       https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
     Archive:            https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/

Description of Working Group:
  Configuration of networks of devices has become a critical requirement
  for operators in today's highly interconnected networks. Large and small
  operators alike have developed their own mechanisms or have used vendor
  specific mechanisms to transfer configuration data to and from a device
  and to examine device state information which may impact the
configuration. Each of these mechanisms may be different in various
  aspects, such as session establishment, user authentication,
  configuration data exchange, and error responses.

  The NETCONF protocol (RFC 6241) provides mechanisms to install, manipulate,
  and delete the configuration of network devices. NETCONF is based on the
  secure transport (SSH is mandatory to implement while TLS is an optional
  transport) and uses an XML-based data representation. The NETCONF protocol
  is data modeling language independent, but YANG (RFC 6020) is the recommended
  NETCONF modeling language, which introduces advanced
  language features for configuration management.

  Recently NETCONF WG define the Call Home mechanism for NETCONF and RESTCONF protocols
  as well as updated RFC5539 by adding the new message framing used by NETCONF 1.1.

  Based on the implementation, deployment experience and interoperability
  testing, the WG aims to produce a NETCONF status report in a later stage.
  The result may be clarifications for RFC6241 and RFC6242 and addressing
  any reported errata.

  In the current phase of NETCONF's incremental development the workgroup
  will focus on following items:

  1. Combine the server configuration data models from the Call Home and RFC5539bis drafts in a separate Server Configuration YANG module by addressing the need for NETCONF as well as RESTCONF.

  2. Develop RESTCONF, a protocol based on NETCONF in terms of capabilities, but over HTTP and with some REST characteristics, for accessing YANG data in NETCONF datastores. An "ordered edit list" approach is needed (the YANG patch) to provide client developers with a simpler edit request format that can be more efficient and also allow more precise client control of the transaction procedure than existing mechanisms. The YANG patch operation, based on the  HTTP PATCH method, will be prepared in a separate draft.
In addition develop a YANG library, which identifies the information about all YANG modules used by a server. Furthermore develop a collection resource for the RESTCONF protocol to provide enhanced filtering features for the retrieval of data nodes with the GET method.
RESTCONF should not deviate from the NETCONF capabilities unless proper justification is provided and documented. The RESTCONF work will consider requirements suggested by the other working groups (for example I2RS).

    3. Develop a zero touch configuration document (a technique to establish a secure network management relationship between a newly delivered network device configured with just its factory default settings, and the Network Management System), specific to the NETCONF use case.

    4. Develop a subscription and push mechanism that allows client applications to request notifications for changes in the datastore. These updates will be pushed by the server to the client based on a subscription policy.

    5. Update RFC 6536 (NETCONF Access Control Model) to introduce access control rights associated with actions.

    6.Enhance RFC 5277 with the ability to delete subscriptions without closing the client session, to modify existing subscriptions, and to have multiple subscriptions on a established client session. These changes should not affect older clients that do not support these particular subscription requirements. The RPCs and the data models in RFC 5277 should be converted to YANG.

Goals and Milestones:

  Done - Submit RFC5539bis to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard
  Done - Submit NETCONF call home mechanism to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

  Oct 2015 - WGLC for RESTCONF, YANG patch operation and YANG Library drafts
  Nov 2015 - Submit RESTCONF to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

  Jan 2016 - WGLC for RFC5277bis draft
  Jan 2016 - Submit RFC5277bis to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard
  Jan 2016 - WGLC for YANG datastore push update draft
  Feb 2016 - Submit YANG datastore push update to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

  Feb 2016 - WGLC for RFC6536bis draft
  Feb 2016 - Submit RFC6536bis to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

  Feb 2016 - WGLC for zero touch configuration
  Feb 2016 - WGLC for RESTCONF Collection Resource draft
  Mar 2016 - Submit zero touch configuration to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard
  Mar 2016 - Submit RESTCONF Collection to AD/IESG for consideration as Proposed Standard

  Mar 2016 - WGLC for NETCONF server configuration data model
  Apr 2016 - Submit server configuration data model to AD/IESG for consideration as