While I agree with the overall requirement that I2RS support both
secured and unsecured communication,
I find Ephemeral-REQ-06 rather odd. Trying to have the module designer
specify whether the usage of a node (get, set, ...?) must be via a
secure or unsecure transport seems a very odd placement of the control.
Why are we mandating this on a per-node level?
Thank you,
Joel
On 5/25/16 9:39 PM, [email protected] wrote:
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Interface to the Routing System of the IETF.
Title : I2RS Ephemeral State Requirements
Authors : Jeff Haas
Susan Hares
Filename : draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07.txt
Pages : 14
Date : 2016-05-25
Abstract:
This document covers requests to the NETMOD and NETCONF Working
Groups for functionality to support the ephemeral state requirements
to implement the I2RS architecture.
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state/
There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07
A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-i2rs-ephemeral-state-07
Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
_______________________________________________
I-D-Announce mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i-d-announce
Internet-Draft directories: http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt
_______________________________________________
i2rs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i2rs
