Re: latest beep draft

["Arvind Jamwal" <ajamwal@cisco.com>]

Sure, <session-id> would do the trick but I hate the idea of having xml
elements with overloaded meanings.

Also, I was wondering how you will define a common XML schema for the hello
message?
For the agent, <session-id> element is required and for the manager it is an
error to include it.

Having a role element will help.

-Arvind

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
To: <ajamwal@cisco.com>
Cc: "'Eliot Lear'" <lear@cisco.com>; <sberl@cisco.com>; "'netconf'"
<netconf@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: latest beep draft


> Arvind Jamwal wrote:
>
> >Hi Andy,
> >
> >Would it make sense to specify the role as part of the hello message
rather
> >than relying on the presense/absense of session-id element?
> >
> >
> Why?
> Can you think of a reason why the <session-id> can't be used?
> By design, the agent gives out the session ID.  This isn't something
> that can change once decided.
>
> The WG already decided that it would be a very rare case (e.g.,
> misconfiguration)
> in which an agent connects to another agent or mgr to mgr.   And if this
> ever happens,
> the worst case scenario is that it uses up 1 TCP control block on an
> idle connection.
> That's why the #manager and #agent capabilities were removed from an
> early draft.
>
> Andy
>
> >What I am proposing is the following change to the hello message:
> >
> >   <hello xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0">
> >     <capabilities>
> >       <capability>
> >         urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0
> >       </capability>
> >       ...
> >     </capabilities>
> >     <role>agent</role>         <------- new role element
> >     <session-id>4</session-id>
> >   </hello>
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> >-Arvind Jamwal
> >
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
> >Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:29 AM
> >To: Eliot Lear
> >Cc: sberl@cisco.com; 'netconf'
> >Subject: Re: latest beep draft
> >
> >Eliot Lear wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>We talked about this.  A netconf manager is certainly going to know it
> >>is a netconf manager and a netconf agent is certainly going to know
> >>it's a netconf agent.  This leaves two cases:
> >> o where the server is also a client
> >> o where a client is misconfigured
> >>
> >>I think this could be handled with a netconf capability that says
> >>"iam-manager" or "iam-agent", but as I recall consensus was against
> >>me.  Now, I could introduce that concept as an option in the
> >><greeting> in the BEEP protocol mappin if there are no objections.
> >>That would handle the corner case...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't want special-case handling for BEEP.
> >Steve already provided the answer -- only a NETCONF peer acting in the
agent
> >role should send the <session-id> element in the capabilities exchange.
If
> >neither send it or both send it, then the session should be shut down
> >immediately.
> >
> >Andy
> >
> >
> >
> >>Eliot
> >>
> >>Steven Berl (sberl) wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Not sure if it is too late for comments on this doc, but here it is
> >>>anyway.
> >>>
> >>>Section 2.1 last paragraph
> >>>"it is assumed that each knows its role in the conversation."
> >>>
> >>>What happens when this assumption is wrong? How is it detected, and
> >>>what actions are to be taken?
> >>>
> >>>If I am a manager and I receive a <rpc> from someone I thought was an
> >>>agent, what should I do? Probably close the channel.
> >>>If 2 agents connect to each other, they can exchange <hello> messages
> >>>and then sit there forever waiting for the other to send an <rpc> of
> >>>some sort.
> >>>I suppose the agents could detect this by noticing that the received
> >>><hello> has a <session-id> element, and that only other agents send
> >>>this element.
> >>>The action again should probably be to close the channel.
> >>>
> >>>This situation is specific to BEEP because the SSH mapping specifies
> >>>that only managers can initiate sessions.
> >>>-steve
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]
> >>>>On Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2005 1:24 AM
> >>>>To: netconf
> >>>>Subject: latest beep draft
> >>>>
> >>>>I believe I have addressed issues raised in the WG last call. Can
> >>>>those who had comments (Juergen, Wes) take a quick scan? In
particular:
> >>>>
> >>>> - addressed security issues regarding SASL & TLS
> >>>> - added examples - are these enough?
> >>>> - clarified use of <hello> and <greeting>
> >>>>
> >>>>The draft is at the following URL and is still relatively short:
> >>>>
> >>>>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-netconf-beep-04.txt
> >>>>
> >>>>Eliot
> >>>>
> >>>>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>