[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: I-D Publication Request: draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt


How about the following?

   A NETCONF SOAP service could be offered on any desired port, but a
   new standard port for NETCONF over SOAP (over HTTP) will be defined,
   as requested in the IANA considerations of this document.
   For reliability and security reasons, NETCONF SHOULD NOT be
   offered on port 80, and instead SHOULD use the IANA defined port.

(This also removes the comment about possibly defining a standard
port for SOAP over HTTP in general -- an interesting discussion on its
own, but not essential for NETCONF.)

Thanks,
Ted.


On 11-Jul-05, at 2:57 PM, McDonald, Ira wrote:

Hi Phil,

The draft certainly doesn't track that 'concensus'.  The draft
should explicitly say SHOULD NOT use port 80 for NetConf for
reliability and security reasons.

Cheers,
- Ira

Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221  Grand Marais, MI  49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com


-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Shafer [mailto:phil@juniper.net]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 4:59 PM
To: McDonald, Ira
Cc: 'j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de'; Ted Goddard; 'Sharon Chisholm';
netconf
Subject: Re: I-D Publication Request: draft-ietf-netconf-soap-05.txt


"McDonald, Ira" writes:

If you use a dedicated port, then much simpler protection can be
performed.


I think this issue is an old one.  We had concensus on
not using port 80 and on requesting an official port.
If the draft doesn't track this, it needs an update.

Thanks,
 Phil



--
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/>