Re: [netconf] Compression mode vs Encoding format (draft-tao-netconf-data-export-capabilities)
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 13 August 2021 01:15 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 9D0B33A1357 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:15:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 F4NzW2yWI02U for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85BBD3A1354 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2021 18:15:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4Gm5F31VTbz6G9JD; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:14:31 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) by fraeml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.8; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 03:15:10 +0200
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) by dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:15:08 +0800
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) by dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Fri, 13 Aug 2021 09:15:08 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Robert Varga <nite@hq.sk>, Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Compression mode vs Encoding format (draft-tao-netconf-data-export-capabilities)
Thread-Index: AdeP4Kb9wIJ+F9GrSD6JPQCDkPH5pQ==
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 01:15:08 +0000
Message-ID: <beeb7dd594d74ebc9bcd38656a688601@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.123.117]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/3NjjBNsajrNmRcHdawon9QEwCok>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Compression mode vs Encoding format (draft-tao-netconf-data-export-capabilities)
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: Fri, 13 Aug 2021 01:15:22 -0000
Hi, Robert: -----邮件原件----- >发件人: Robert Varga [mailto:nite@hq.sk] >发送时间: 2021年8月12日 6:49 >收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>; Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>; netconf@ietf.org >主题: Re: [netconf] Compression mode vs Encoding format (draft-tao-netconf-data-export-capabilities) >On 04/08/2021 10:17, Qin Wu wrote: >> Hi, Mahesh: >Hello everyone, >> One of comments you raised in the meeting on >> draft-tao-netconf-data-export-capabilities-05 >> (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-tao-netconf-data-export-c >> apabilities-05.txt) >> >> is the relation between compression mode and Encoding format. >> >> Here is a few clarifications: >> >> 1. Compression mode is not encoding format >> >> Compression mode indicates that the server support data compression or >> deflate or gzip compression supported by NETCONF. The deflate or gzip >> compression will be applied to xml file. >> >> It is independent from what encoding (e.g., JSON, XML, binary) is >> chosen for exported data. >Perhaps we should be using different names? [Qin Wu] Sounds good suggestion, I think encoding here is notification message encoding Which I realize, is different from HTTP content encoding https://www.iana.org/assignments/http-parameters/http-parameters.xhtml he registry currently lists: br Brotli Compressed Data Format [RFC7932] compress UNIX "compress" data format [RFC7230] Section 4.2.1 deflate "deflate" compressed data ([RFC1951]) [RFC7230] Section 4.2.2 inside the "zlib" data format ([RFC1950]) exi W3C Efficient XML Interchange >>I think the modeling intent is really to reference various media types: >>dec:xml and dec:json correspond to >>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8040#section-11.3 >>dec:cbor corresponds to >>https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-core-yang-cbor-16.html#name-media-types-registry >>dec:gpb corresponds to ??? [Qin Wu] There is no official media type for protocol buffers registered with the IANA, They choose Content_type or ALT Content_type instead, see the link https://googleapis.dev/java/google-http-client/1.29.0/com/google/api/client/protobuf/ProtocolBuffers.html Maybe dec:gpb should be taken out. >>Converting between encodings routinely requires understanding of the YANG model (for example instance-identifiers in JSON vs XML). >> 2. Compression mode is not header compression defined by HTTP2. >> >> 3. Right now, we haven’t seen any standard documenting >> compression mode. >Right, but compression (in the bit stream sense) is probably best left to the transport protocol -- SSH/HTTP can routinely handle that. >This is more akin to HTTP's Transfer-Encoding, I think. [Qin Wu] I agree. See above the reference link: https://googleapis.dev/java/google-http-client/1.29.0/com/google/api/client/protobuf/ProtocolBuffers.html >Efficient XML Interchange Capability for NETCONF has been proposed >> before >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-varga-netconf-exi-capabili >> ty-01 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-varga-netconf-exi-capabil > ity-01> >> >> but it doesn’t reach any agreement. The idea is very close to what we >> propose in draft-tao-netconf-data-export-capabilities-05. But still >> different. >Right, and then the exi-capability draft would define an identity derived from dec:binary (and probably a media type as well). Not that I plan to pick it up again anytime soon :) [Qin Wu] Understood, thank for clarification. >Regards, >Robert > > Hope this clarify your comment. > > > > -Qin (On behalf of authors) > > > _______________________________________________ > netconf mailing list > netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf >