[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
>
>
>
>