Re: [netconf] mbj review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-01

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 26 March 2019 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.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 C3B5F12002F for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cHZHmbT-b6Bw for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB6BC12000F for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 05:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2826; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1553604265; x=1554813865; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=QI4bJXoOAwoqrbmGwoTZhS3XFqBkuoBwgvwP+WpN1CA=; b=O9Ff0cwRdCnjwdFaboBfa2b5EM1AA9gigePsG8RfAw/G+eVITw8QBCQr ggf+2/plgO8kkYIIdQzGcPZBANWAXHIs7uw+iK39jhOBDIV8AUDI1PtdW 81tz32fx8Qx9Dk9eswyz6CE0vOirDozeRRsqeTCWyg7I+I1oS/YUe8LYG A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0APAADpHZpc/5pdJa1kGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBVAEBAQEBAQsBghBogQMnCplSmjYNAQEYC4QDRgKFIiI?= =?us-ascii?q?3Bg0BAQMBAQkBAwJtHAyFSgEBAQMBAQE4NAkCEAIBCA4oECcLJQIEAQ0FCIM?= =?us-ascii?q?bgW0ID645ii8FgS8BizEXgUA/gRGDEj6CYQEBgTsQhXcDmFiMQQkCkzEhggK?= =?us-ascii?q?SAIsdgReSGwIRFYEuNSKBVnAVO4JsiwyFP0ExjXCBLYEfAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,271,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="537831085"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 26 Mar 2019 12:44:24 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x2QCiNIV016184 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:44:24 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:44:23 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.003; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 08:44:23 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com" <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] mbj review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-01
Thread-Index: AQHU48Tgf0toYk97E02xs+aQtFnAKKYd0l7w
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:44:23 +0000
Message-ID: <cfb2f23fb199437eb714d67ad86e44a1@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <20190325.215637.1342845104682793774.mbj@tail-f.com> <e333e4e3-2c40-2f19-5035-d6d24a0adcab@ericsson.com> <20190326.121231.1546381642017000114.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190326.121231.1546381642017000114.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.163.70]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.154, xch-rtp-014.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-3.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/2gZbEg2Esb3evQELQmkNnFNuHMg>
Subject: Re: [netconf] mbj review of draft-ietf-netconf-notification-capabilities-01
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 12:44:28 -0000

> >     o  General
> >
> >   In YP, support for on-change is optional.   There is a feature
> >   called "on-change".  I think this document should state explicitly
> >   that this module is intended for servers that implement that
> >   feature.
> >
> > BALAZS: OK, but some other capacity related proerties are still valid.
> 
> What other capacity related properties do you mean?

The latest draft allows minimum periodic reporting intervals to be set.

...
> >     o  Section 3.2
> >
> >   minimum-dampening-period is optional.  It should be stated what it
> >   means if this leaf is not present.   (or should the default be 0?)
> >
> > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > it is. No special meaning. I do not see a reasonable minimum value
> > (eventhough 0 would look strange). IMHO it is the responsibility of
> > the server to provide a meaningful value. If it says zero, that's
> > obviously crazy, just ignore it. I don't thing we need to have rules,
> > like: do not provide stupid state data.
> 
> Note that 0 is the default in YP, so I don't know why you think it is crazy.
> 
> I suggest you add default "0" to this.

I agree.

> >     o  Section 3.2
> >
> >   The choice update-period is not mandatory, and doesn't have a
> >   default.  What does it mean if this is not reported?
> >
> > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > it is. No special meaning.
> 
> I think this should be clarified in the description.
> 
> >     o  Section 3.2
> >
> >   The leaf max-objects-per-update is not mandatory.  What does it mean
> >   if this is not reported?  It can have the value 0.  What does that
> >   mean?
> >
> > BALAZS: If not present it means that the system does not tell you what
> > it is. No special meaning.
> >
> > I do not see a reasonable minimum value (eventhough 0 would look
> > strange). IMHO it is the responsibility of the server to provide a
> > meaningful value. If it says zero, that's obviously crazy, just ignore
> > it.
> 
> I suggest you add a range "1..max" to the type.

Is max necessary?   I would assume that when this is not populated, it is  by default max (per below).

Eric
 
> >       Perhaps make a union of uint32 0..max and the enum "infinite" and
> >   make that the default?  (of course "infinite" is not really
> >   correct...)
> >
> > BALAZS: IMHO infinite is unreasonable. If the server doesn't know the
> > real limit, it should just not provide a value.
> 
> Ok, makes sense.  I think this should be clarified in the description.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf