problems in draft-ietf-netconf-prot-08

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hi,

Here is what I have found studying diffs between -07 and -08:

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

1) Clarification added to sec. 7.9:

     The <kill-session> operation does not rollback configuration or
     other device state modifications made by the entity holding the
     lock.

Note that this is not true for a confirmed-commit  (see sec. 8.4.1).
If you kill the session that is holding the lock, and of course
also issued the first commit, the agent must revert the running config.


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

2) Change to NETCONF Base URN inconsistently applied:

Throughout the examples, and some normative text (3.1, 8.1),
the base URN is listed in 3 different forms:

(A)  urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0


(B)  urn:ietf:params:netconf:base:1.0

From sec. 10.1:

(C)   URI: Please assign the URI "urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf" for use
     by the NETCONF protocol.

Form (C) of the NETCONF NS is not used at all within the document.
All xmlns declarations are in form (A).  Only the capability exchange
in sec 8.1 shows form (B) in use. 

Shouldn't they all be changed to form (B) for
both the NETCONF NS (all xmlns declarations)
and the NETCONF Base capability (used as content
for the <capability> element for the version of
the protocol supported)?

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


3) From sec. 10.2, NETCONF Schema IANA request:

  URI: Please assign the URI "urn:ietf:params:xml:schema:netconf" for
  use by the NETCONF protocol.

This string is not used anywhere in the document.

From the XSD in appendix B:

          <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema";
             xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"
             targetNamespace="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"


Shouldn't this targetNamespace be the same as the string
used in all the xmlns examples in the document for the
NETCONF namespace?  Which is supposed to be form (B) above?

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

4) From sec 10.3:

  This document requests that IANA create a registry for allocating
  NETCONF capability identifiers.  Allocation from the registry is on a
  First Come First Served Basis, but a specification is required.

  The initial content of the registry will be the capability URNs
  defined in Section 8.  Once further experience is gained with
  NETCONF, this sub-namespace may be used for additional purposes.

  Following the guidelines in RFC 3553 [7], IANA is requested to assign
  a NETCONF sub-namespace as follows:

  Registry name: netconf

  Specification: Section 8 of this document.

  Repository: Section 8 of this document.


Does paragraph 1 imply that the NETCONF registry will have
values defined outside the WG?  I am opposed to this.  We
need to keep WG and vendor definitions separate, just like
we do with SMI.

The specification of the capability URNs is listed as 'Section 8'.
This is not sufficient because the values are scattered throughout
a very large section.  IMO we need a table added in sec 8 that
lists all the actual strings, and 10.3 should refer to that table.

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

thanks,
Andy



--
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/>