[netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Fri, 14 June 2024 14:00 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 D4E5EC14F698 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:00:42 -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_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 lGt8sdeEtjgK for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pj1-x102e.google.com (mail-pj1-x102e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::102e]) (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 858D5C14F619 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pj1-x102e.google.com with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2bfff08fc29so1875803a91.1 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:00:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks.com; s=google; t=1718373638; x=1718978438; 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=ASsy/ki8ekI7hnsnjXN8UlpKX8mGPxC1PP9nh9f+wsU=; b=MMj4vafzISguA7K1LHh24xHFGhF8bHNMPYTKKRa/sQxA04jf0K9ZeA2xP5Zr/jrbsg nUE22wR4duzR0TOg37LkMEKfes1wiwyrzMWg1QL3aBs6Hw3fXg5NiXm7GAdzJpVPzFdx UJNQgZYeIGFEyj2qozubGBodjncSkM+cO/ICPPTeb9dXWJS0OBv7Q4e7Er5mWjANBkuB tgBAinYDH+yhOk3NAeExXkrhw9pAoMa3yNk6zQPId9nL+nM0z36w+kzqSvPpepzJU/1q ZbHjoHQYK4HSzhiDE7rXkG6iGJyx367V8yeZSUoC2NFdm5QOqdV0nbVn59e8Tn3P8bCF Gbkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718373638; x=1718978438; 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=ASsy/ki8ekI7hnsnjXN8UlpKX8mGPxC1PP9nh9f+wsU=; b=JQ6TMO4brfle3w/0sXMTNWq8sx/RjYgQSnJNeP6xc338LA+wQkR5BN9pIbZX7FUzCU +WPf7sla0/BHH5wsiywN/5mJUBOpuxht8xU8bXxzgNg6vxGJmcoci72I6J8+IO/GpllV cifRCiZXKoC/aGWtGD4p6MMtovajhxqlrQAm+XRdJ5IVygfdrHcYUnVCLE6NLLn+zxWa ZA19F/xC+2XPkuc8+0cVXXfRyxuWAy80u8M23HYvba3SVIIYniXrlKmHvxRxGtaPx2aG U0xkGhOgexyatGuh/qiRM95UVRxv0Rvc6sQoYOgP5Dem1mH6MHzYCZkybpwQieAzzsR0 JZRA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCViTpqZDLpl07YP/wq4C0G9VrD38JDLJ8u2orCx3Cj6byqNbnNvuh9qVPoPvJEk+Fy+ytUIeXTu6CEKnxukLa5S
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yx2bcepsFHyYspn/xZ+61GafoNK9Gxr0odY8EQIav17bv8oZs5L odlxZ43mkdA8w3abZND7DQdfMNgbY/6pMI8bWORwqXvu+1dy/iBrqK3ODtcDVGXNcc6ppl5HTey oSrr6+bETNr55iite5BOTUk5vtLDGtnmKflYxSQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHEhGbsBkaje0toKCjPiXC2Tz7KDDoxUCayxG2k1U676GCjd2622CdAxgKFhpnYA8RPtvuKMCIq0/Vg0mxMysg=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:7e82:b0:2c2:dee9:d922 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2c4dbd37f96mr2957981a91.42.1718373637559; Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0100018eb57a21d8-26b38f41-a625-4d44-9248-09b349fd4212-000000@email.amazonses.com> <0100019012711c3f-d2317fe0-30c0-4207-bb1f-855190e3ea3f-000000@email.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHT-ThmSn-ikhHpfNfH8duV2hbkPVLoo+qLc4MAanjK=dg@mail.gmail.com> <f8ac63d7-c14f-3e28-5645-913cb5f535fc@huawei.com> <CABCOCHRK9J=CtP18ubd5GBmBCgUHWFM5w8FwAQr8mssLepOp0A@mail.gmail.com> <183159d9be0a4e258edf3a9a71d503ff@swisscom.com> <CABCOCHSHLaVUcnvecb8NZRy9qMkHU4=g_BEwZXay61COUBV_vg@mail.gmail.com> <a952e959b1264f83a8a6aa1aabdf775e@swisscom.com>
In-Reply-To: <a952e959b1264f83a8a6aa1aabdf775e@swisscom.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2024 07:00:26 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTkrdyn5CHTDHF+okFzks-suG6YE=Px==y=8XoBDo3caA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000422fc1061ada0a68"
Message-ID-Hash: 5KRNYDDBSURA5Z6STZBKRVQVV4JJ2I2T
X-Message-ID-Hash: 5KRNYDDBSURA5Z6STZBKRVQVV4JJ2I2T
X-MailFrom: andy@yumaworks.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/1fVpJ9sI7pBBv7n1xmFqO5jhzFM>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 6:47 AM <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> wrote: > Dear Andy, > > > > AB> I think the module name "ietf-restconf" is used for JSON. > > AB> Not a problem. > > > > I believe you are refering to RFC 8040 section 6.4 correct? > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8040#section-6.4 > > > > I highlight the paragraph in question > > > > The structure of the event data is based on the <notification> > > element definition in Section 4 of [RFC5277] > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5277#section-4>. It MUST > conform to the > > schema for the <notification> element in Section 4 of [RFC5277] > <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5277#section-4>, > > using the XML namespace as defined in the XSD as follows: > > > > Two child nodes within the "notification" container are expected, > > representing the event time and the event payload. The "eventTime" > > node is defined within the same XML namespace as the <notification> > > element. It is defined to be within the "ietf-restconf" module > > namespace for JSON-encoding purposes. > > > > Here an example from that paragraph with highlighted notification > statement. > > > > In the following example, the YANG module "example-mod" is used: > > > > module example-mod { > > namespace http://example.com/event/1.0; > > prefix ex; > > > > organization "Example, Inc."; > > contact "support at example.com"; > > description "Example Notification Data Model Module."; > > revision "2016-07-07" { > > description "Initial version."; > > reference "example.com document 2-9976."; > > } > > > > notification event { > > description "Example notification event."; > > leaf event-class { > > type string; > > description "Event class identifier."; > > } > > container reporting-entity { > > description "Event specific information."; > > leaf card { > > type string; > > description "Line card identifier."; > > } > > } > > leaf severity { > > type string; > > description "Event severity description."; > > } > > } > > } > > > > No YANG module specified in RFC 8040. Same problem as in RFC 8639 with > YANG-Push. Therefore my statement still holds true that from a schema > perspective, JSON and CBOR encoding is not implementable. > > > It does not say there is a YANG module. It is defined to be within the "ietf-restconf" module namespace for JSON-encoding purposes. This is normative text. This provides the XML namespace and JSON module-name assignments instead of a real YANG module. > Best wishes > > Thomas > Andy > > > *From:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> > *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 3:18 PM > *To:* Graf Thomas, INI-NET-VNC-HCS <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> > *Cc:* benoit.claise@huawei.com; netconf@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 > > > > *Be aware:* This is an external email. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 3:45 AM <Thomas.Graf@swisscom.com> wrote: > > Dear Andy, > > > > AB> What is the notif-yang issue, exactly? > > > > TG> Med posted the following concern and objection: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Abw9mRHZos_yK9-x1HWHCVyv_xM/ > > TG> Kent raised the question wherever YANG notifications can be encoded in > JSON. I described my reasoning why today it cannot be encoded in JSON and > CBOR here: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e_PsL-RK0f7jXKpeQSPdiHxgRno/ > > > > > > I think the module name "ietf-restconf" is used for JSON. > > Not a problem. > > > > AB> YANG does not support abstract elements like XSD. > > AB> It is not possible to use YANG to define the NotificationContent > element. > > > > TG> I requested a problem description here on the mailing list: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/B3CML33wZJ0h6pSnB3S88HSh8O4/. > Your reply > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/g7KomEpdr2bthjuGTaAMZfyFvcg/ > did not answer my question. I would appreciate a more detailed problem > description with concrete references to existing documents and paragraphs > describing reasoning. > > > > > > I incorrectly commented on the Message Broker work. > > That is outside the scope of this notif structure draft. > > The notif structure is not useful for validation of the notification > element. > > > > Best wishes > > Thomas > > > > Andy > > > > > > *From:* Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> > *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 11:34 AM > *To:* Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com> > *Cc:* netconf@ietf.org > *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 > > > > *Be aware:* This is an external email. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 2:20 AM Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com> > wrote: > > Dear all, > > On 6/14/2024 4:34 AM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:32 AM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote: > > Dear WG, > > This adoption call was unsuccessful. > > There is obviously a lot of interest, but the solution doesn’t seem > adequate, given the comments made on the list. Not to disparage the > effort, but the problem is rather intractable! > > Andy mentioned that an Interim may be needed, which seems right (+1 if you > agree), but I wonder if there isn’t more that can be done in preparation > first. Specifically, as this effort challenges fundamentals, it would help > to clarify the motivation and expected outcomes. > > > > +1 to a better functional specification > > An interim for which content? > > > > I don't think an interim is required vs. email discussion. > > > > We started with an adoption call on notif-yang-04 and it seems that > discussion went in all directions. From the below message > - new fields in notification header > - binary encoding > > Maybe we should focus just on notif-yang issue, to start with? > > > > What is the notif-yang issue, exactly? > > YANG does not support abstract elements like XSD. > > It is not possible to use YANG to define the NotificationContent element. > > > > > > > > Regards, Benoit > > > > Andy > > > > IMO there are no implementation problems caused by the RFC 5277 XSD for > the notification element. > > YANG is incapable of validating this element, but it is a trivial > structure, easy to validate. > > > > It is not clear to me that any new fields are needed in the notification > header. > > The NETCONF WG discussed multiple timestamps pre-5277 and decided against > it. > > Same for 'sequence-id'. IMO these are OK for YANG Push augments. > > > > I supported this draft as a way to get 2 SID assignments. > > > > IMO the NETCONF WG needs to make Binary YANG Push a top priority. > > This needs to be protocol-independent as possible (not UDP-specific). > > I think YANG Push can be simplified and improved. (But not in this WG) > > > > > > One high-level question I have, is there anything wrong with the > “notification” statement in RFC 7950? That is, is this at all a YANG-next > issue for the NETMOD WG, or is to purely NETCONF WG issue? > > Kent > > > > Andy > > > > > > On Apr 6, 2024, at 6:14 PM, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote: > > > > NETCONF WG, > > > > This message starts a two week poll on adopting the following document: > > > > YANG model for NETCONF Event Notifications > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-04 > > > > The poll ends April 20. > > > > Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support” or "no/do not > support". If indicating no, please state your reservations with the > document. If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to > see addressed once the document is a WG document. > > > > No IPR is known for this document: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/oQVZ6Pf_novNfMB4RsnDxQibHpM/ > > > > PS: this document received strong support before, being very focused, > providing just a module enabling validation of YANG “notification” messages. > > > > Kent and Per (as co-chairs) > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netconf mailing list > > netconf@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > _______________________________________________ > netconf mailing list -- netconf@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to netconf-leave@ietf.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netconf mailing list -- netconf@ietf.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to netconf-leave@ietf.org > > > >
- [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] FW: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Jean Quilbeuf
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Nils.Warnke
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Zhuoyao Lin
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Vincenzo Riccobene
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Voyer, Daniel
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Giuseppe Fioccola
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Jan Lindblad (jlindbla)
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Camilo Cardona
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Qin Wu
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Leonardo.Rodoni
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 maqiufang (A)
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Paolo Lucente
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 IGNACIO DOMINGUEZ MARTINEZ-CASANUEVA
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 mohamed.boucadair
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Benoit Claise
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Benoit Claise
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- Re: [netconf] Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Per Andersson
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Benoit Claise
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Benoit Claise
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Andy Bierman
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Rob Wilton (rwilton)
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04 Alex Huang Feng