NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home
draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-17
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2017-02-17
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2017-02-02
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2017-01-25
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from REF |
2016-11-01
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to REF from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-11-01
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-10-31
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT from MISSREF |
2016-01-13
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-01-13
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-01-12
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-01-12
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-01-07
|
17 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors |
2015-12-28
|
17 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF |
2015-12-28
|
17 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2015-12-28
|
17 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2015-12-28
|
17 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup |
2015-12-28
|
17 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2015-12-28
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-28
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-12-28
|
17 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-22
|
17 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-17.txt |
2015-12-16
|
16 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-16.txt |
2015-12-14
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Thank for addressing my prior discuss points! In section 1.3, please add a sentence that points to the threat/security analysis for use of … [Ballot comment] Thank for addressing my prior discuss points! In section 1.3, please add a sentence that points to the threat/security analysis for use of this function with NETCONF and RESTCONF after the last sentence: In such circumstances, allowing the SSH/TLS server to contact the SSH/TLS client would open new vulnerabilities. Any use of call home with SSH/TLS for purposes other than NETCONF or RESTCONF will need a thorough, contextual security analysis. |
2015-12-14
|
15 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Kathleen Moriarty has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-12-14
|
15 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-15.txt |
2015-12-14
|
14 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-14.txt |
2015-11-24
|
13 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-13.txt |
2015-11-24
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my discuss points. Just a couple of nits remain that I can see. - Typo: "SSH and clients may not … [Ballot comment] Thanks for addressing my discuss points. Just a couple of nits remain that I can see. - Typo: "SSH and clients may not be as robust" is missing a TLS I guess. -Saying "don't use Verisign" seems a bit wrong, maybe re-word that. |
2015-11-24
|
12 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Stephen Farrell has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2015-11-23
|
12 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2015-11-23
|
12 | Kent Watsen | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-11-23
|
12 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-12.txt |
2015-10-26
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-10-22
|
11 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation::Revised I-D Needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-10-22
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The answer to the question from Gen-ART reviewer Suresh Krishnan might also be a useful addition to the document. |
2015-10-22
|
11 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] Three points in decreasing order of importance: 1) Why is this parapraph below (and subsequently the other similar ones) using RFC 2119 language … [Ballot comment] Three points in decreasing order of importance: 1) Why is this parapraph below (and subsequently the other similar ones) using RFC 2119 language with respect to the port numbers The NETCONF/RESTCONF client listens for TCP connection requests from NETCONF/RESTCONF servers. The client SHOULD listen for connections on the IANA-assigned ports defined in section Section 5, but MAY be configured to use a non-standard port. Using the right port number is not something that influences the interoperability of the protocol per se, but is an operational parameter. Checking other protocol specifications, e.g. HTTP/1.1, there is no RFC 2119 language about the usage of specific port numbers. 2) I am not a fan of having different port numbers to differentiate different vanilla flavors of a protocol. However, I can understand the why this is happening this way. But what is happening if there is X-over-TLS/SSH/foo coming after RESTCONF? Are you again in need of more port numbers? This does not look like a tactical wise and sustainable way. 3) This document will benefit from an overview figure that details who is the server/client on what level for what. |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot discuss] Section 2.1 & 3.1 Why is authentication limited to server-side authentication? It seems that this really should be mutual authentication to ensure the … [Ballot discuss] Section 2.1 & 3.1 Why is authentication limited to server-side authentication? It seems that this really should be mutual authentication to ensure the server is also connecting to the correct client and there was no attack prior to the callback. 3.1 S3 - Why is client-side authentication optional? Without this must, there should be a security consideration that the call back could go to a malicious client. The types of authentication matter as well, but that's covered in Stephen's discuss points along with the SecDir review questions on TLS-PSK. |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] In section 1.3, please add a sentence that points to the threat/security analysis for use of this function with NETCONF and RESTCONF after … [Ballot comment] In section 1.3, please add a sentence that points to the threat/security analysis for use of this function with NETCONF and RESTCONF after the last sentence: In such circumstances, allowing the SSH/TLS server to contact the SSH/TLS client would open new vulnerabilities. Any use of call home with SSH/TLS for purposes other than NETCONF or RESTCONF will need a thorough, contextual security analysis. |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-10-21
|
11 | Suresh Krishnan | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Suresh Krishnan. |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] One comment and a question: - 3.1, S1: If the client MAY be configured to listen on a non-standard port, doesn’t that imply … [Ballot comment] One comment and a question: - 3.1, S1: If the client MAY be configured to listen on a non-standard port, doesn’t that imply that the server MUST be _capable_ of being configured to connect to a non-standard port? - 4: I'm curious why people felt it necessary to reverse the usual TLS or SSH client and server roles. Did the working group consider having the NETCONF/RESTCONF server act as the TLS or SSH client? If so, can the reasons be summarized in a sentence or two? |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot comment] In this text: C1 The NETCONF/RESTCONF client listens for TCP connection requests from NETCONF/RESTCONF servers. The client SHOULD listen … [Ballot comment] In this text: C1 The NETCONF/RESTCONF client listens for TCP connection requests from NETCONF/RESTCONF servers. The client SHOULD listen for connections on the IANA-assigned ports defined in section Section 5, but MAY be configured to use a non-standard port. are SHOULD/MAY mutually exclusive here, or can you do both? I'd be guessing if I said I knew, from this text. Could you provide "as well as" or "instead of" guidance? |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] In Section 2.1, C5: This validation MAY be accomplished by certificate path validation or by comparing the … [Ballot comment] In Section 2.1, C5: This validation MAY be accomplished by certificate path validation or by comparing the host key or certificate to a previously trusted or "pinned" value. It's a finnicky point, but I think it's an important one: You list two methods for validation: (1) cert path validation, and (2) comparing to a pinned value. Is it (A) acceptable for the validation to be done by other methods as well as those two? Or is it (B) required that one of those two be used, but either is acceptable? If (A), then the text is fine as it is. But if (B), the text as written doesn't require the use of one of the specified methods, because "MAY" is optional. If you mean (B), you should write it as "MUST be accomplished either by [...] or by [...]." Alternatively, you could just add it to the previous sentence, as, '...client MUST validate the server's presented host key or certificate, either using certificate path validation or by comparing the host key or certificate to a previously trusted or "pinned" value.' (That wasn't a DISCUSS point because I think implmentors are likely to get it right anyway. But I do think the text needs to be tightened up in order to make it fully clear.) In Section 2.1, C8, an even more finnicky and not very important point: Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/ RESTCONF client MUST immediately start using either the NETCONF- client [RFC6241] or RESTCONF-client [draft-ietf-netconf-restconf] protocol. What *else* might the client do, which merits a MUST here? I think all you should say here is, "Once the SSH or TLS connection is established, the NETCONF/RESCONF client starts using either [...the protocols...]." Continuing... Assuming the use of the IANA-assigned ports, the NETCONF-client protocol is started when the connection is accepted on either port PORT-X or PORT-Y and the RESTCONF-client protocol is started when the connection is accepted on port PORT- Z. But no: the (NETCONF/RESCONF)-client protocol is NOT started when the connection is accepted (that was in C2), but when the SSH/TLS connection/session is established. Which you already said in the previous sentence, and C1 already said what ports the client listens on. Why is this sentence even here? Why not just remove it? These same two comments apply to S6 in Section 3.1. |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-10-20
|
11 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot discuss] I have three points to discuss, I think these may be fairly easy to resolve, or maybe not, but I'd like to chat … [Ballot discuss] I have three points to discuss, I think these may be fairly easy to resolve, or maybe not, but I'd like to chat about 'em. (1) HTTP Auth: is it ok for a client to send it's e.g. basic auth credential to any of the servers that the client can validate? I.e., is an additional level of pinning needed for this? That would be a new form of pinning and is not defined for either TLS or SSH afaik. That could also be done in various ways and I'm not sure if those might have interoperability consequences. Or perhaps if not doing that, this draft should say something about a need for stronger credentials esp. for basic auth. Did the WG consider this? (2) The secdir review [1] calls out issues related to TLS-PSK and (I guess also) bare keys. I think it'd be good to be speific as to wheher or how those are to be supported here. If you are going to say those are supported, then I suspect some additional text is needed. Kent's answer to that (which was "see RFC7589" as I read it) doesn't quite do it here I think. that says that certificates must be supported (which is fine) but doesn't say that TLS-PSK or bare keys can or cannot be supported. [1] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06087.html (3) Consider zmap. When this is deployed, what'll be the effect of surveys that fingerprint all of the devices on the visible Internet who implement this protocol? Did the WG consider that? I'm not sure of the impact, if any, but it could be good if there's a way to help deployments end up less vulnerable to fingerprinting (and the ensuing exposure to unpatched vulns). |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot comment] - OCSP: any issue there? is it mandatory to use in any case for TLS? |
2015-10-19
|
11 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-10-14
|
11 | (System) | Notify list changed from mjethanandani@gmail.com, draft-ietf-netconf-call-home.ad@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-call-home.shepherd@ietf.org, netconf-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-call-home@ietf.org to (None) |
2015-10-08
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Simon Josefsson. |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot has been issued |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-10-22 |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-10-07
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-10-07
|
11 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-09-30
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2015-09-30
|
11 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Fred Baker |
2015-09-25
|
11 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-09-25
|
11 | Amanda Baber | (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. Upon … (Via drafts-lastcall@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. Upon approval of this document, IANA will register the following in the Service Name and Transport Protocol Port Number Registry: Service Name: netconf-ch-ssh Transport Protocol(s): TCP Assignee: IESG Contact: IETF Chair Description: NETCONF Call Home (SSH) Reference: RFC XXXX Port Number: PORT-X Service Name: netconf-ch-tls Transport Protocol(s): TCP Assignee: IESG Contact: IETF Chair Description: NETCONF Call Home (TLS) Reference: RFC XXXX Port Number: PORT-Y Service Name: restconf-ch-tls Transport Protocol(s): TCP Assignee: IESG Contact: IETF Chair Description: RESTCONF Call Home (TLS) Reference: RFC XXXX Port Number: PORT-Z Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. |
2015-09-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2015-09-24
|
11 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Suresh Krishnan |
2015-09-24
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Simon Josefsson |
2015-09-24
|
11 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Simon Josefsson |
2015-09-23
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-09-23
|
11 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Network Configuration WG (netconf) to consider the following document: - 'NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-10-07. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-call-home/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-call-home/ballot/ The following IPR Declarations may be related to this I-D: https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2170/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2445/ |
2015-09-23
|
11 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-09-23
|
11 | Amy Vezza | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Last call was requested |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-09-22
|
11 | (System) | Earlier history may be found in the Comment Log for /doc/draft-ietf-netconf-reverse-ssh/ |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Benoît Claise | Working group state set to Submitted to IESG for Publication |
2015-09-22
|
11 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-11.txt |
2015-09-22
|
10 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-10.txt |
2015-09-18
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Hi Kent, I have completed the shepherd review of the NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home draft. I believe the document is well written … Hi Kent, I have completed the shepherd review of the NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home draft. I believe the document is well written and is easy to read. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is intended to be a Standards document, and it indicates it as such in the document. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This RFC presents NETCONF Call Home and RESTCONF Call Home, which enable a NETCONF or RESTCONF server to initiate a secure connection to a NETCONF or RESTCONF client respectively. Working Group Summary This document is a result of a split between this document and the server configuration data model which is its own draft. With the split most of the complexity in configuration has moved to the server model draft. There were 10 issues that were opened and closed on the draft. At this point there are no open issues. Document Quality This document was extensively reviewed and comments were provided both in IETF meetings and on the mailing list. Perhaps the most important discussion and which resulted in the split, is the discussion around hostname keys and SSH and TLS configuration. Both Tom Petch and Juergen gave extensive comments on the draft. Personnel The document shepherd is Mahesh Jethanandani. The responsible AD will be Benoit Claise. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The Document Shepherd have followed the progression of the document through the WG, and has reviewed the document. At this time the document has addressed all the outstanding comments in the latest draft version. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? The document shepherds does not have any concerns about the amount of review the document has received. It has been reviewed by several parties. (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document does not need review from any additional parties. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No, the Document Shepherds do not have any specific concerns. (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. Yes, the author has confirmed two IPRs related to the draft. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. An IPR disclosure is documented under https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2445/ and it has been published on the WG mailing list. There were no discussions as a result of the disclosure of the IPR. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? There is strong consensus from a diverse set of individuals, who have voiced support for the document. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No. (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. No Indnits revealed in this document. (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. No formal review criteria encountered. (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes. (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No. (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. No. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). The IANA considerations section details the changes that would be required as a result of this draft requesting three TCP port numbers in the “Registered Port Numbers” of IANA registry entry. The request follows the template rules identified in RFC 6335. (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. The IANA registry needs to review the request for three new TCP ports, one for SSH over NETCONF and two for NETCONF and RESTCONF over TLS. There was some discussion in the WG over whether there was anyway to combine the port requests and reduce the number of port requests. (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. None. |
2015-09-18
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-09-18
|
09 | Benoît Claise | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-09-18
|
09 | Benoît Claise | Shepherding AD changed to Benoit Claise |
2015-08-05
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from In WG Last Call |
2015-08-05
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2015-08-05
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Changed document writeup |
2015-08-05
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Notification list changed to "Mahesh Jethanandani" <mjethanandani@gmail.com> |
2015-08-05
|
09 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Document shepherd changed to Mahesh Jethanandani |
2015-07-21
|
09 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-09.txt |
2015-07-11
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2015-07-11
|
08 | Mahesh Jethanandani | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-06-15
|
08 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-08.txt |
2015-06-03
|
07 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-07.txt |
2015-05-29
|
06 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-06.txt |
2015-05-12
|
05 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-05.txt |
2015-02-02
|
04 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-04.txt |
2015-01-13
|
03 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-03.txt |
2014-12-05
|
02 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-02.txt |
2014-10-10
|
01 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-01.txt |
2014-09-29
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Juniper's Statement of IPR related to draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-00 | |
2014-09-06
|
00 | Kent Watsen | New version available: draft-ietf-netconf-call-home-00.txt |