Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice? (was RE: YangPush now)

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Juergen,

I am fine either way if we incorporate the proposal or not.  Do you have the proposed construct is technically acceptable from the perspective of the YANG doctors?

Also below are some thoughts on your other points...

> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, July 27, 2018 2:05 AM
> 
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:35:04PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> >
> > One transport for all receivers was a voted WG decision at IETF 101.
> Some of the reasons from threads like:
> > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg13875.html
> > https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14899.html
> >
> > include:
> > (1) Simpler YANG model
> > (2) Simpler implementation possible as a single configured
> > subscription need be connected to only one transport
> > (3) Simpler implementation in that there is no expectation set on the
> publisher that there will be no transport loss if the transport type is
> reconfigured for a particular receiver mid-subscription.
> > (4) Separation of implementation/troubleshooting concerns, as only one
> > transport is involved
> >
> 
> With the proposed choice construct, I think
> 
> (1) does not hold,

Agree.  

> (2) seems unclear (why are multiple identitical subscriptions for
>     different transports cheaper than one subscriptions with multiple
>     transports?)

Deep within the archived discussions, there were implementation consideration points made about managing content and security filtering across different transports and encodings for a single subscription.  (E.g., what happens if filtering happens after encoding and a change is made to the subscription or security filters, how do you ensure the all filtering is applied at the same event boundary?)

> (3) I do not understand

There are a set of implications which can be avoided.  For example controllers (which are receivers) will be consuming these events.  Controller based applications are less likely to have an expectation that there will no event replication for a single subscription-id for a publisher when that subscription-id transitions from one transport to another.  

> (4) I do not understand (since you can easily distinguish the receiver
>     and label log messages by receiver)
> 
> If we would be serious about simplification to lower the point of entry, we
> would have only a single receiver for a configured subscription. Allowing
> multiple receivers as long as they use the same transport seems like an
> arbitrary CLR.

Yes, this was considered.  However there are use cases where identical event streams must be sent for receiver redundancy reasons.  The current design can support that possibility.  Beyond that, there are deployment proof points from oc-telemetry.yang that this is a desirable capability.

Eric
 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>