[core] Re: Coreconf Notifications

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Thu, 18 July 2024 16:06 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.com>
X-Original-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: core@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7669C1519A9 for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:06:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NBkChZTOWhBj for <core@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf1-x429.google.com (mail-pf1-x429.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3445CC151543 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf1-x429.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-70b702be5e4so9776b3a.0 for <core@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:06:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks.com; s=google; t=1721318794; x=1721923594; darn=ietf.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yhQQwE7csJqtd3bzUf2CaN/AXV1BUyfqZc64KsiJAfA=; b=S7KNsmFjwQMNGinRqHvlXAD8lBXMbLKQUmqdRbkWEdRue4x+7LCkEwtHlOuQGrz3io 3Er6GOh6ptW/lQv07WTC8ilR5Rkv0U6xBaQ34o+KSyRN/BmRIj1L65dd/vWrPeDci8fz iK4MmK8RaA5sb6lz7esaoieGgy7+LfP2i/geHdRfmElQkt7dAgLxuP1xo/u4J4QPtsNk 98yLgPs4JyC1xPpfyogO0n40Oh5ahjo1pDv2x+ZOWcRvk0q2wJ2uRDCegs6eW93vApUn V+GJWi3eGZtl7Dia68w/DUVbCtSDd6AozW7k6sED09zxufJFutAXAMka+5y9sH2EXjpz cnFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1721318794; x=1721923594; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yhQQwE7csJqtd3bzUf2CaN/AXV1BUyfqZc64KsiJAfA=; b=K7PpjhIitwUzvRjEknKxtfvA8IG7D2TBmPsCqe52giYt5F7Xd1Q61G1aqi07v7MhG9 AomB7J7sUyFASPDuv2ioVHRya+TnaHdyFpp0OxdrHGxUKj7OBHKzpj9PRMWUZt4hROTD IqzHnmJnmgp+cOvbBaYfH0zgz0RcA9SOB7OmCtsFhV60qEBmjgQfYGkUrJj0ooe0Bf7m A8K8CVLO5SG2mgXsZiJOkSSbjrjOw22xgYm1xPBNT4FLZhUkXAmUIqF80wCQelMf7lO3 KUO8uLvIT9LdJkjnTRmjch4hiLGTY9rZPGVEvBqRGmU+uDSumaiZIo2jv/7FwyPsdOZ0 RbBA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUvMY8wKPJuDVhePiDlWGt1ADaHscDWU4U3TDn7yxcZjO7gv4c3tU80FDbWhzwPzGNGkmwslD7KeCj95Zck
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YyN7zOSoO1pCyOgLYG+IcR367jE0wNrmDknQzlziuRfRg2pm+ns EI4zFzR/VUslOewiGUT0l48XNJYgHwshVUJuVUr+HL54kRRuOR6f8BrNNYLbDvRPIfov1rYSJx7 tHdDQ5X0Jvsw8HQF8mOqAfsUZNYTiztEILr4FOOsvNmp/d2dmx3E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGlFYZxg6L4D8nOOSjGT69nGYwS6qRzsD7w/ObzXtINrg0id2IcP9eM4FdEVz7GzhD3298eXC27G+NWqmc+Slg=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6a20:d510:b0:1c2:8cc4:9084 with SMTP id adf61e73a8af0-1c3fdd18660mr5813917637.34.1721318794224; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <E2DFFA8E-9766-4CB4-BCAA-6897402B8FB2@insa-lyon.fr>
In-Reply-To: <E2DFFA8E-9766-4CB4-BCAA-6897402B8FB2@insa-lyon.fr>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 09:06:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTxe+d6nhS_zQXvsQne4YXvwtMtdXxCecjSuBhvqvvWxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Huang Feng <alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004689c9061d87c3bc"
Message-ID-Hash: DVTZQLFDQHF6GL5BPCL5REYD4OVN3W3N
X-Message-ID-Hash: DVTZQLFDQHF6GL5BPCL5REYD4OVN3W3N
X-MailFrom: andy@yumaworks.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-core.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-core-comi@ietf.org, core@ietf.org, Pierre Francois <pierre.francois@insa-lyon.fr>, Vivekananda Boudia <vivekananda.boudia@insa-lyon.fr>, "Thomas. Graf" <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com>, Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [core] Re: Coreconf Notifications
List-Id: "Constrained RESTful Environments (CoRE) Working Group list" <core.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/core/bjhTpNdl0wUY8fMYDk6-uHmlEco>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/core>
List-Help: <mailto:core-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:core-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:core@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:core-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:core-leave@ietf.org>

On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 8:56 AM Alex Huang Feng <
alex.huang-feng@insa-lyon.fr> wrote:

> Dear authors and CORE WG,
>
> I have some questions regarding how YANG notifications are encoded in CBOR.
>
> I am co-authoring draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-05 where we are
> defining how NETCONF notifications are encoded in XML, JSON and CBOR.
> This definition is not explicit in JSON (RFC7951).
>
> Reading the YANG-CBOR (RFC9254) specification, the notifications are
> encoded as a “container-like” instance. This is rather a different approach
> from XML (RFC7950) and JSON (RFC7951) which to my understanding a leaf
> “eventTime” needs to be present in the notification as defined in RFC5277.
> I am wondering why YANG-CBOR defined YANG notifications differently. I
> don’t follow this WG closely but would love to hear the reasons which led
> to the wording in RFC9254. (Or if more consistency with XML and JSON is
> expected)
>
> For CORECONF, reading
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-core-comi-17#name-notify-examples,
> the notifications are also defined without the leaf defined in RFC5277 but
> still references this RFC.
>
>

YANG has the notification-stmt which only models the event part of the
notification message.
The notification message defined in RFC 5277 is a conceptual container that
has an eventTime leaf and this event part
that is modeled in YANG as child nodes.

YANG-CBOR defines the mapping to the YANG notification-stmt, not any
conceptual protocol messages
that are not defined in YANG.

Andy





> We plan to use CBOR encoding with YANG-Push (RFC8641) to reduce the size
> of the YANG-defined messages between the NETCONF server and client.
> In
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-05#name-cbor-structure we
> define how we expect the CBOR message to be encoded.
> Having a similar approach to encode YANG notifications between JSON and
> CBOR ease the development of some open-source projects, such as the
> integration of YANG in the Kafka message broker.
> Here some references of such integration:
> -
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-nmop-yang-message-broker-integration-03
> -
> https://github.com/network-analytics/draft-daisy-kafka-yang-integration/blob/main/schema-registry-yangkit-integration-02.pdf
>
> Note also that we request a .sid file for YANG-SIDs for compressed CBOR
> messages in
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-05#appendix-A
> .
>
> We will be onsite in Vancouver, so happy to have a live discussion
> regarding these encoding mismatches.
>
> I think the integration of YANG and CBOR into Kafka might also be of
> interest to the WG.
> Feel free to ping me back to have a discussion during the IETF week. We
> will also be present at the Hackathon Saturday and Sunday.
>
> Regards,
> Alex
>
>
>
>
>
>
>