Using the NETCONF Protocol over Secure Shell (SSH)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(David Harrington) (was Discuss, No Objection) Yes
1) The IANA section does not specify that the assigned port is a TCP port. should it?
(Dan Romascanu) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk) No Objection
Comment (2011-03-02 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
I suspect I am disclosing my lack of netconf clue, but here goes: Why is the example in section 4.2 (chunked encoding) declaring the base1.0 namespace? I thought that base1.1 support is required of both the server and client to use chunked encoding...
(Peter Saint-Andre) (was Discuss) No Objection
For the sake of clarity, I suggest changing "<rpc> end tag" to "</rpc> end tag" in Section 4.2. Why do examples at the end of the Section 5 (top of page 9) contain LF? As far as I can see, those XML documents are not being chunked.
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection
This is updated to add two new comments from the SECDIR review. #1) Sec 3.1: 2nd para, 1st sentence: Should the "must" in the first paragraph be a "MUST"? #2) Sec 4.2: Would any XML decoding error cause termination as stated at the end of 4.2? E.g. some unknown xmlns value or something? #3) If it's worth changing the framing protocol at all, which I'm willing to accept as a given, it is far from obvious to me that the current negotiated upgrade is the right way to do it, as this will require implementation of the old bad mechanism forever. Switching to a new SSH subsystem name seems like a much simpler solution. #4) As a matter of stylistic consistency with the last several decades of Internet protocols, the delimiter sequence in the new framing protocol should have been <CRLF>, not <LF>.