Re: [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription

Michael Richardson <> Fri, 25 June 2021 16:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A7BC3A0B06; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:58:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C0ZbJ8-6u8tf; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:58:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B60273A0B02; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 09:58:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C215B38B97; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:00:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by localhost (localhost []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5sbQjQDcS7Nu; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2B6538B92; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 13:00:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCA71553; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 12:58:18 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <>
To: Qin Wu <>, "netconf\" <>, "core\" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 12:58:18 -0400
Message-ID: <11661.1624640298@localhost>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments \(CoRE\) Working Group list" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:58:29 -0000

Qin Wu <> wrote:
    mcr> I didn't finish my thought here.  Specifically, it seems that the CORE
    mcr> WG is doing a lot of stuff with CoAP Observes and SENML and all sorts
    mcr> of interesting triggers.

    Qin> data modeling language such as YANG can be common work for both CORE
    Qin> WG and NETCONF WG, But they may choose different transport protocol,
    Qin> such as NETCONF, RESTCONF, HTTP 2.0, COAP, MQTT, COMI Secondly, I
    Qin> think it will be nice to separate constrained device management from
    Qin> resource unconstrained network device management, Constraint device
    Qin> as IoT device can be temperature sensor, current, voltage sensor
    Qin> which can be seen as affiliated devices pertaining to resource
    Qin> unstrained network device.

temperature, current are critical values for routing equipment, aren't they?

    Qin> In data center scenarios, we do a lot of such affiliated devices or
    Qin> sensors such as air conditioner, water leakage alarm sensor deployed
    Qin> together with data center switch devices.  These IoT devices only
    Qin> use MQTT/COAP/HTTP to communicate with their IoT platform, for data
    Qin> center switch devices, you may still rely on network management
    Qin> protocols such as NETCONF, SNMP, gRPC, etc.  Do you see this
    Qin> differently? Michael?

It seems that we ought to seek convergence here.
That's what I'm saying.  That any split here is for historical reasons, and
does not make sense going forward.

Michael Richardson <>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide