IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> Wed, 22 March 2017 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D5671315E8 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:35:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nic.cz
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pxw4-lJ4W04x for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:35:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.nic.cz (mail.nic.cz [IPv6:2001:1488:800:400::400]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A09921315FA for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 02:35:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:58a4:d470:9e82:39e0] (unknown [IPv6:2001:718:1a02:1:58a4:d470:9e82:39e0]) by mail.nic.cz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2EEDB60183; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:35:38 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nic.cz; s=default; t=1490175338; bh=sCH+Y9NrhV18bZcrkYj13L2o/PuMeibBwP6i6mD1H7w=; h=From:Date:To; b=TX8G0ORK5aZ4dO05/eaypQ0+5HeZj0aqNPqNAzHHEC/6+9adwLbv7PaQz7qfJA6at sYSGSJVjrwF8qp00yMLwfRTP3zr/jMMdr58C2qnzhNCHV9TGKUsxArP/pfKK24K67t 1KQiRQZOY80Zq6Bh4/8p5Wd5FVa8KHczI7iikxDQ=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
From: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20170322084751.GA37843@elstar.local>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 10:35:35 +0100
Cc: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>, Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <804C3246-DE92-40CD-9A46-6CC662FE9727@nic.cz>
References: <005101d2975f$ae87ac20$0b970460$@ndzh.com> <017d01d29769$0df70b20$29e52160$@gmail.com> <010701d29771$a45f66e0$ed1e34a0$@ndzh.com> <026601d2977f$8d059600$a710c200$@gmail.com> <685B9088-7557-4C6E-9A8F-54C3208DB312@juniper.net> <7217bc23-0e1e-c250-929d-e18c3f0a800f@cisco.com> <07b601d2a197$9865d5b0$c9318110$@gmail.com> <20170321082015.GC35044@elstar.local> <0f17c698ae2645988692ba1eef007d79@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <37950223-F83B-40FD-8CA4-9A790D0A917E@nic.cz> <20170322084751.GA37843@elstar.local>
To: Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.2 at mail
X-Virus-Status: Clean
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/-nPqtfQLLBoUSDNnkf_X7KxSHyc>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 09:35:43 -0000

> On 22 Mar 2017, at 09:47, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:54:39AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>> 
>>> There are two different needs:
>>> 
>>> (1) RESTCONF over HTTP2:  This is what you are asking for, and I would love to see this as well.  As far as I know, nobody is currently defining this.
>> 
>> I wonder: is this needed? AFAIK, HTTP/2 methods are semantically equivalent to those of 1.1. We have a working implementation of RESTCONF over HTTP/2 (only) and I am not aware of any change in RESTCONF that was be needed because of HTTP version.
>> 
> 
> I _assume_ there is not much needed but someone has to go and check
> the details.
> 
>> Regarding HTTP/2 Server Push, its purpose is IMO different, so it cannot serve as a replacement to SSE.
> 
> Is that just a feeling or a claim or is there additional technical
> detail why this would be the case?

It's used if the server expects some request from the client to follow, and the PUSH_PROMISE frame sent by the server must contain the headers from the expected request. With notifications there are no requests expected from the client.

A more detailed explanation is here (search for SSE):

https://www.infoq.com/articles/websocket-and-http2-coexist

Lada

> 
> /js
> 
> -- 
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

--
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email