Re: [netconf] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: (with COMMENT)

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Tue, 21 May 2019 16:04 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.com>
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 E751F120041; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:04:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=jheUnvbO; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=IDPV9SlV
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 36BsJIOcg-F6; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:03:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B31912016E; Tue, 21 May 2019 09:03:48 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4056; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558454628; x=1559664228; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=blRjYlicwelG+Q9EYDPjPM1JfhP0g1K6wIFQbGLUTYk=; b=jheUnvbOnYtMEtUx5QkG5hV84+JWfahDb7ag5C71a8T8tL+kjRXCdfee LTpCh2vSvsCpx6voKpoV4O8hAKUqynRAzg1Htza1KKrCcWC1dYOXB3jbe nHnI1h43Wh6mvSUqOUJvG1ICtSVHDycP5OqX0k2r8wPx3F5FviMVJH/R9 M=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3A3ZGrrRFomNAOSSQwQKhNx51GYnJ96bzpIg4Y7I?= =?us-ascii?q?YmgLtSc6Oluo7vJ1Hb+e4z1A3SRYuO7fVChqKWqK3mVWEaqbe5+HEZON0pNV?= =?us-ascii?q?cejNkO2QkpAcqLE0r+eeTwZiw/FcJqX15+9Hb9Ok9QS47z?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0B+AABFIORc/5NdJa1lHgEGBwaBUQk?= =?us-ascii?q?LAYE9JAUnA2lVIAQLKAqECYNHA452gjKXTIEuFIEQA1QJAQEBDAEBIwoCAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?EQAIXgg8jNAkOAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVLAgQSEREMAQE3AQ8CAQgaAgkdAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?CMBUQAgQBDQUigwABgWoDHQEOnC8CgTWIX3GBL4J5AQEFgUdBgn0Ygg8DBoE?= =?us-ascii?q?MKAGLUBeBQD+BEScME4JMPoJhAgECAYEhCQESAR8XIQKCUDKCJos4gkKaLQk?= =?us-ascii?q?Cgg2GLoh4g1obgh6GW40zjFaGco5WAgQCBAUCDgEBBYFPOCk9WBEIcBVlAYJ?= =?us-ascii?q?Bgg83bQEHgkOFFIU/cgGBKItFgSIBgSABAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,495,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="274673111"
Received: from rcdn-core-11.cisco.com ([173.37.93.147]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 21 May 2019 16:03:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (xch-rcd-010.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by rcdn-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4LG3kl0014564 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 21 May 2019 16:03:46 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:03:45 -0500
Received: from xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) by xhs-aln-002.cisco.com (173.37.135.119) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:03:44 -0500
Received: from NAM04-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (72.163.14.9) by xhs-rcd-002.cisco.com (173.37.227.247) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 21 May 2019 11:03:44 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=blRjYlicwelG+Q9EYDPjPM1JfhP0g1K6wIFQbGLUTYk=; b=IDPV9SlVwaO1/EoX3r3g9elgOiryX2P8roSbOALV9fgMtkH/tsTl/GKDQVecO7tOARX1cr0E77CkRhbRzNcCjcFEHxYAWpkWqTFyisGQfjx2ABGBJ5t51wXEFzm68Kv48jWV6ANVoIuSbnH0IYGgnxWHXbppW/mm1XBlBOewMsY=
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.104.151) by DM5PR1101MB2187.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.104.148) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1922.16; Tue, 21 May 2019 16:03:43 +0000
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce2:350d:6bed:7dde]) by DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce2:350d:6bed:7dde%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1900.020; Tue, 21 May 2019 16:03:43 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVC90j5N+ogNsXt0aGO/2zhavC3qZ1grgA
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:03:43 +0000
Message-ID: <6CAAE1F0-336D-4E43-9544-7D83FC456409@cisco.com>
References: <155800723160.19565.3853721470955609906.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <155800723160.19565.3853721470955609906.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.6.190114
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [173.38.117.76]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 600495f3-6e73-4d85-187f-08d6de05e62a
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2187;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR1101MB2187:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR1101MB218700B0DE23B579B1F2AA45AB070@DM5PR1101MB2187.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8273;
x-forefront-prvs: 0044C17179
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(39860400002)(376002)(346002)(396003)(366004)(136003)(189003)(199004)(6486002)(26005)(186003)(6246003)(99286004)(305945005)(83716004)(14454004)(68736007)(478600001)(966005)(53936002)(6306002)(76116006)(73956011)(6512007)(102836004)(64756008)(66446008)(66556008)(91956017)(5660300002)(66946007)(66476007)(256004)(82746002)(7736002)(76176011)(2906002)(6436002)(6116002)(25786009)(3846002)(6506007)(4326008)(229853002)(71190400001)(36756003)(71200400001)(2616005)(66066001)(476003)(86362001)(446003)(486006)(58126008)(110136005)(11346002)(81156014)(81166006)(8936002)(33656002)(54906003)(8676002)(316002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2187; H:DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: NhN5F6+8Km2SVvEwQ++qIrzDiXT/YQ2FUVLU3rovo4nu0N6Z01htmZB2Kxt+HE4tK2mcBNeXGYM4O5GDiDo1hmKpYwA7B3p+SNOS4OTOtOziCseply3k6vzoJcfL8fw/jKkrVpAwYiZ72VJ98VtGoWbYkpUQzBwagHJqbra1muV8YvI0+hZ82MIH0Yn/SPIGLp7IDnD6VF3+DURD9L+2T64u4zMCBTU+w6otbGfiOPxxWWSgEs4cvMtKUM51CLdC8uB/BKY6xPXOSBemcKftUB/w6FS1MfB1W977l6L0uqNexqdyj58twfQHaEAxo8sDZ3T4t8yJA1B0jtOEvnFRt2QBIdJgM5JlqI65CPGRD9M1Ag+KtCerVeQPbOAQjNge69avmwScm6ZIbrnN60qfXmjKwVnjxb8PFJkoiU2UXtY=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E118E6A2661B4140B999BE0CF0A604BE@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 600495f3-6e73-4d85-187f-08d6de05e62a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 May 2019 16:03:43.5353 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR1101MB2187
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xch-rcd-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/0InevwZPwEv76ksLMz9eSdnyzrw>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:04:02 -0000

Hi,

Thank you for the review. Please see inline.

On 2019-05-16, 7:47 AM, "Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:

    Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
    draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: No Objection
    
    When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    introductory paragraph, however.)
    
    
    Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    
    
    The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif/
    
    
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    COMMENT:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Section 4:
    
    Based on the QoS discussion for draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications
    weight is not really a a priority in the terms people think of it. It only
    provides a weight for bandwidth allocation.
    
       o  take any existing subscription "priority", as specified by the
          "weighting" leaf node in
          [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and copy it
          into the HTTP2 stream weight, [RFC7540] section 5.3, and
    
    I would recommend that the use of "priority" is reformualted here to reflect
    that aspect.
<RR> We got similar comments from another reviewer, the proposed new text for the next revision is:
take the "weighting" leaf node in  [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and copy it into the HTTP2 stream weight, [RFC7540] section 5.3, and ...
Would this address your comment?
    
       o  take any existing subscription "dependency", as specified by the
          "dependency" leaf node in
          [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and use the
          HTTP2 stream for the parent subscription as the HTTP2 stream
          dependency, [RFC7540] section 5.3.1, of the dependent
          subscription.
    
    What is not obivous to me is that just because that a subscription exists at
    the publisher that it is going over the same HTTP/2 connection and thus there
    might be nothing for the dependency to point at that is relevant for the
    mechanism described in RFC 7540. I didn't even find a recommendation that the
    receiver (subscriber) should actually re-use the HTTP/2 connection for all
    communication with the same publisher.
 <RR> Good point, this is not spelled out.  We will add text for the subscriber's reuse of the HTTP2 session:
for dynamic subscriptions to a specific publisher, all subscriber URI GET requests MUST use a common HTTP2 session for a particular DSCP value.

Regards,
Reshad.