Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice?
Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> Tue, 31 July 2018 19:02 UTC
Return-Path: <alexander.clemm@huawei.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 C6180130DC6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 aIJ8NX2HcBZb for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6237E130E4A for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 455A9DA080BAF for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 20:02:12 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 20:02:14 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.107]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.139]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Tue, 31 Jul 2018 12:02:08 -0700
From: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "kwatsen@juniper.net" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
CC: "evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice?
Thread-Index: AQHUKEYUmUSBX283/kCJ9HawSKyfbKSp4JqA///MaPA=
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 19:02:07 +0000
Message-ID: <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EB406AA@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <44B0A74E-CCF0-4E9B-846A-1F46E90AEB5E@juniper.net> <20180731.165103.950825344221422538.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180731.165103.950825344221422538.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.216.144]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/15hNMYtYp_jtzwa4rwjerIK6McA>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 31 Jul 2018 19:02:19 -0000
I am wondering why we are reopening the issue of multiple encodings/transports per receiver vs per subscription? Having single transport / encoding per subscription is a simpler design (feedback from implementors; simplifies dealing with any error conditions due to encoding that would affect one receiver but not others in the same subscription; Einar has explained this in the past) and, while I am in general a fan of general design, there does not seem to be business requirements and scenarios that demand this - and even if there were, this would constitute merely an optimization (since if you have different receivers who want different encodings/tranport, you can always simply create another subscription). If in the future there is really desire to add this as an additional feature, we can put this into a -bis version. (Adding stuff will be easier than taking things away.) Let's just be done. --- Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Martin > Bjorklund > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2018 7:51 AM > To: kwatsen@juniper.net > Cc: evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org; netconf@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice? > > Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote: > > [removing yang-doctors list, and updating subject line accordingly] > > > > > > >> > Why do all receivers of a subscription have to use the same > transport? > > >> > > >> This was something that Martin and Eric worked out before we did > > >> the first Last Call. Eric doesn't seem to know the particular > > >> reason, other than Martin seems to think it’s easier. > > > > > > No; I personally also prefer a design where each receiver has its > > > own transport + encoding. > > > > +1 > > > > > > > The original model had a common "encoding" for all receivers, and > > > then a receiver-specific transport - I think this is even worse, > > > > Agreed. > > > > > > > and suggested to have transport + encoding defined together > > > preferrably receiver-specifc or else common for all receivers. > > > > > > If the WG now believes that the transport + encoding should be done > > > per receiver, this should be fairly easy to change. > > > > I also prefer per receiver, and I think that doing so will simplify > > the model, as neither the mandatory "transport" nor the [not > > mandatory?] "encoding" leaves have to be specified. > > > > In particular, my thoughts are that the "notif" model should provide > > for the encoding selection, if needed (it's not needed for NETCONF, or > > COAP I imagine). > > I agree. I think this would be a cleaner design. > > > /martin > > > > > > In the case of RESTCONF, we could update the ietf-restconf-client and > > ietf-restconf-server models to include an "encodings" leaf-list, to > > configure the RESTCONF server which encodings it should support. We > > likely need to do something similar to configure which HTTP versions > > should be supported. Now, in a general RC server, the server could > > support both but, if the restconf-notif draft has its own list of > > restconf-servers (i.e., it uses the "restconf-server-grouping" itself, > > see my July 19 email for a YANG example), then a constraint could be > > added limiting the number "supported" to just one. Thus, when the RC > > server reboots, and connects to the receiver and *automatically* (no > > client RPC) starts pushing notifications, it can know what encoding to > > use. > > > > I'm still unsure if its legal for an RC server to automatically push > > notifications without a client-initiated RPC of any sort, and I'm also > > uncertain if supporting *configured* subscriptions for NC or RC is > > needed (see my message July 20 email). So, some of this may work > > itself out as we progress. > > > > I know that we're not defining the *configured* notif drafts in this > > first effort, the we are publishing the SN draft with a configuration > > model, my only concern now is configuration model presented in the SN > > draft. > > > > > > Kent // contributor > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Andy Bierman
- [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory c… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Einar Nilsen-Nygaard (einarnn)
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Henk Birkholz
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] YANG Doctor question: empty mandato… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… tom petch
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question… Martin Bjorklund