Re: [netconf] New Version Notification for draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-00.txt

[Alex Huang Feng <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jason,

Thanks for your feedback. 
Yes, that was my second option, just not asking for a new URI and reusing urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0 as defined in RFC5277.
My issue there was that the same namespace is linked to two schemas, one defined in XML (with RPCs) and one defined in YANG (without RPCs) which seems a bit confusing.
But if it is the way to go, happy to remove the URI from the draft.

Alex

> On 31 Jan 2023, at 23:06, Jason Sterne (Nokia) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hello Alex,
>  
> If we use a different namespace, then it means the notifications that clients receive would be in a different namespace (that in theory they don’t recognize unless they are updated with your new draft).
>  
> Maybe we’d just want to keep the same old namespace as in RFC5277 here? It is just an alternative schema format for describing the same schema elements.
>  
> Jason
>  
> From: netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alex Huang Feng
> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2023 4:34 AM
> To: Netconf <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [netconf] New Version Notification for draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-00.txt
>  
> Dear Netconf WG,
>  
> On the last IETF 115 (and some time ago in the ML), I raised the discussion on a gap in the spec of YANG-push notification model.
>  
> The definition of this model is necessary to encode and decode the YANG-push notification header using different encodings.
>  
> Currently, the definition of this model is specified in RFC5277 using a XML schema (See section 4 of RFC5277).
>  
> When the message needs to be encoded using other YANG-compatible encodings (such as YANG-json RFC7951 or CBOR RFC9254), a YANG model needs to be defined.
>  
> This draft defines the YANG model for this notification message. 
> It is a short and very simple draft addressing only the existing definition of RFC5277. No RPCs are defined since they are already defined in RFC8641.
>  
> In the IANA section, I asked for a new URI: urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-notification. Here I asked myself if this is the way to do it. 
> In RFC5277, the authors asked for urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:notification:1.0. This URI reference the XML schema.
> In practice, the validation of the header is valid using both namespaces, but since RFC5277 also defines some RPCs, I went for a new URI.
>  
> I would like to request feedback from the WG.
>  
> Cheers,
>  
> Alex
> 
> 
> On 25 Jan 2023, at 10:02, [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> wrote:
>  
> 
> A new version of I-D, draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-00.txt
> has been successfully submitted by Alex Huang Feng and posted to the
> IETF repository.
> 
> Name:                draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang
> Revision:            00
> Title:                   YANG model for NETCONF Event Notifications
> Document date:             2023-01-25
> Group:                Individual Submission
> Pages:                6
> URL:            https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-00.txt>
> Status:         https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang/ <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang/>
> Htmlized:       https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang>
> 
> 
> Abstract:
>   This document defines the YANG model for NETCONF Event Notifications.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IETF Secretariat
>