Re: [Netconf] New YANG PubSub drafts for NETCONF, RESTCONF, HTTP/2

["Alberto Gonzalez Prieto (albertgo)" <[e-mail]>]

Thanks Kent,

On 1 vs 2 drafts.
I am open to discuss a merge of the two drafts, and I will be happy to listen to the WG opinions and discuss them.
To start the discussion, let me state some reasons why the authors tend to prefer keeping them separate:

  1.  Keep modularity.  If using a single document, would compliance require supporting both netconf and restconf?  This should not be the case, and it might become a hurdle for adoption. Also additional extensions are likely (e.g., other transports and encoding), and keeping different flavors/extension in different modules would facilitate that. Alternatively, should the definition of extensions result in revisions of a common document?
  2.  Limit the complexity of docs. This may facilitate newcomers learning the technology.

Thanks,

Alberto


From: Netconf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Kent Watsen <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM
To: Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 'Alia Atlas' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] New YANG PubSub drafts for NETCONF, RESTCONF, HTTP/2


I think it important that whatever we do in NETCONF we can also do in RESTCONF.   To that end, I support the WG defining "yang-push" for both protocols.

Actually, I'm a little surprised that we're discussing this.  Maybe it's just me, but when the WG adopted draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push, I thought that it would cover both protocols eventually.   Perhaps that a separate draft has been produced is another surprise here - do we really need another draft?

Kent

From: Netconf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> on behalf of Susan Hares <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Date: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 at 2:52 PM
To: "'Eric Voit (evoit)'" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>, "[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>" <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: 'Alia Atlas' <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] New YANG PubSub drafts for NETCONF, RESTCONF, HTTP/2

NETCONF:

These drafts is important to the I2RS pub/sub.   Is the RESTCONF draft going to be adopted (draft-voit-restconf-yang-push-00.txt)?

It would be really helpful.

Sue Hares
I2RS WG chair

From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Eric Voit (evoit)
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 11:37 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [Netconf] New YANG PubSub drafts for NETCONF, RESTCONF, HTTP/2

There are a couple new drafts posted in NETCONF:

(1)  Subscribing to YANG datastore push updates
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-clemm-netconf-yang-push-02.txt
As per earlier NETCONF discussions<http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg10432.html> we are expecting this draft to become draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push in the coming days (once the NETCONF charter is approved).  Look for an OpenDaylight client in the Beryllium release (Feb).

(2) Restconf subscription and HTTP push for YANG datastores
http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-voit-restconf-yang-push-00.txt
Extends draft-clemm-netconf-yang-push in the following ways:

·     proposes Restconf subscription and push mechanisms to continuously stream information from YANG datastores over HTTP

·     provides a mechanism to support static subscriptions so that an operator can stream updates over HTTP without Restconf

·     provides YANG model extensions to leverage HTTP/2 so that individual subscriptions can get custom treatment via their own HTTP streams.

Thanks for your interest, and we look forward to the discussions!

- Alexander Clemm, Eric Voit, Alberto Gonzalez Prieto, Ambika Prasad Tripathy, & Einar Nilsen-Nygaard