[core] Re: Coreconf Notifications

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 25, 2024 at 1:58 PM Alex Huang Feng <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Carsten,
>
> Inline.
>
> On 25 Jul 2024, at 04:08, Carsten Bormann <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On 2024-07-24, at 21:27, [e-mail] wrote:
>
>
> We are proposing with
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang to
> define the transport agnostic notification header as mentioned in the last
> line of section 5 of charter 19.
>
>
> There is a rather ominous line in the YANG:
>
> Implementations must support time zones.
>
>
> This probably makes this YANG module inapplicable to CORECONF.
>
>
> “Implementations must support time zones” comes from RFC5277 [
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5277#section-2.2.1]
> What draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang is trying to solve is defining the
> structure of the notification in a YANG model so that YANG tooling can use
> the YANG module to validate Notifications rather than relying on just text.
>


Can you explain how the 'notification' struct can be used for the
validation of any notification?

Here is an example from your draft:

<notification xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0">
  <eventTime>2022-09-02T10:59:55.32Z</eventTime>
  <push-update xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-yang-push">
    <id>1011</id>
    <datastore-contents>
      <interfaces xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-interfaces">
        <interface>
          <name>eth0</name>
          <oper-status>up</oper-status>
        </interface>
      </interfaces>
    </datastore-contents>
  </push-update>
</notification>



The 'notification' struct does not allow the 'push-update' child node to be
present.
I do not understand why that is not clear.

Only the following pattern would validate OK:

<notification xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0">
  <eventTime>2022-09-02T10:59:55.32Z</eventTime>
</notification>



Andy



> And the reason draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang goes up to RFC5277 is
> because YANG has until now relied on this RFC5277 to define how such
> notifications are encoded.
>
> Note also that in RFC6991, the date-and-time type, the timezone is
> included.
>
> Our comments to draft-ietf-core-comi are because in section 3.4 (
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-comi-18#name-event-stream)
> the authors reference 5277 even though the model is defined in XML only.
> So, we suggest to the authors to change that reference to
> draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang to have a common model also in CORECONF.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
> Does anyone know why this is in there?
>
> Grüße, Carsten
>
>
>