IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] two-week review of drafts related to notifications and subscriptions

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> Mon, 23 October 2017 23:00 UTC

Return-Path: <kwatsen@juniper.net>
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 8221A13AC0D for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:00:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.801
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.801 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-2.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=juniper.net
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 t49rn-3Y5AQV for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM02-CY1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-cys01nam02on0090.outbound.protection.outlook.com [104.47.37.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 59D6D13A902 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=juniper.net; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=bphP2oX+sl/ABZ9mOiLsOazoeXVNjkqLOWiXnZpBB4I=; b=jZUUHif0H/qKRYZVAf/uANO+nHnJrsbQgAfxOnjJuF6zBVVvDDhXpP+XiXckXbN8RXSNcZA7ai3sC2zJiwoZDGlDOC3/tdn+ShyqQbnWzxxvkSFRkZEgZd3y38i/GGwuYozewCYUMVM0z5bOnIw9ix0oHqyjsvsyaElOosw6crE=
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.22.149) by BLUPR05MB276.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.22.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P256) id 15.20.178.3; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:00:48 +0000
Received: from BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) by BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([10.141.22.149]) with mapi id 15.20.0178.003; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:00:49 +0000
From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] two-week review of drafts related to notifications and subscriptions
Thread-Index: AQHTTFLEH1cFVYHXD0CVfgZrvSG+Qg==
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:00:48 +0000
Message-ID: <1FC7C28B-5F6B-46ED-BAC4-92340A9291F5@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/f.20.0.170309
x-originating-ip: [66.129.241.14]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; BLUPR05MB276; 6:tptiJO6Bg3fiY5Qfh15Q8VsTKpvdUzzXSPTbRm8gw5BKgJQljJxKW5m4yUag2zqQb1RG8FMQwwaLvbQo1RVGCJ1MW+TPIqhYhJjVBLOKCYsU1taIbjeO/MqKYU0dLIbrLxHqwG8M5Vz7STuywO3eE0iSmuUUnfHC/fS1olkxpC5Wa/WZhaIGQsYG5dXmtPmCM9brW0DmSfy+Fcg3zgLb4X8zoxZVMkxBdzx9PUl/fnPsLhzIxazwlh+Vm09SqhAX5HUjILy6klkDdpjZrNiBMtxg/F8SikvRfu8NkIshDnoCfCewy+lsp8xAZS4RDHbLBOoUp2GdYyWoJiVwHVWCxU05MFC3FwaBQDrT1pItfJE=; 5:SfPM663f7QUlaYUaxSYFecOb+KTC97b3cqgTPF5JtvvSu1mQTqTrelYpRiPleD2xeaAMqvukMiK4fiyo6eOWO+XJoZZl77zLH+9LXcKrUibxnU1muHl9fLieQpt0zA7oIzZB96NZ3bozl3m+gNpTROMy1V5WHJclNxjYgAd+pzE=; 24:bQJbIjXQ6ZbOXR/Mu30lDXx6krOI1GP1BLYsauwKmAT4m3WoG9b49aVz9AaD8J/IS1aP4Z03xkUlwLwNwSMwBqjeO0SZpv0f2LuPzfbXric=; 7:On4abMef4QXpf5plg4TZ3tQjbR/MGoDHr4X7VLNw858QPU9jKO23mVjG94JyYQ16P2sxICzuJbCyTcC6Duy5tWzlunC/kJ0lf7ul2Qi5zPqM8IY0qUlMwldMM7qIlCuehPMPKq7ghEyPx7liFnExDAyLLaQ6Yp86pco3xb52xMRUgIAf55ur0y2UUe+XjyAVZBJY0ky0gfrsdLnHW1dLJPvldvOLeuMhjwgIaAmj48Enm/F5+lnhYkyW4gsYxC6D
x-ms-exchange-antispam-srfa-diagnostics: SSOS;
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: c0aae371-35ef-4fc3-abce-08d51a69e6e6
x-ms-office365-filtering-ht: Tenant
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(22001)(48565401081)(4534020)(4602075)(4627075)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(2017052603229); SRVR:BLUPR05MB276;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: BLUPR05MB276:
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=kwatsen@juniper.net;
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(10436049006162);
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <BLUPR05MB2766E2560B1E31D48B5144AA5460@BLUPR05MB276.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000700101)(100105000095)(100000701101)(100105300095)(100000702101)(100105100095)(6040450)(2401047)(8121501046)(5005006)(100000703101)(100105400095)(93006095)(93001095)(3231020)(3002001)(10201501046)(6055026)(6041248)(20161123560025)(201703131423075)(201702281528075)(201703061421075)(201703061406153)(20161123555025)(20161123564025)(20161123558100)(20161123562025)(6072148)(201708071742011)(100000704101)(100105200095)(100000705101)(100105500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB276; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(100000800101)(100110000095)(100000801101)(100110300095)(100000802101)(100110100095)(100000803101)(100110400095)(100000804101)(100110200095)(100000805101)(100110500095); SRVR:BLUPR05MB276;
x-forefront-prvs: 046985391D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(6009001)(39860400002)(346002)(376002)(52054003)(199003)(189002)(8936002)(478600001)(54356999)(36756003)(6916009)(105586002)(14454004)(101416001)(575784001)(3660700001)(86362001)(106356001)(2900100001)(50986999)(97736004)(229853002)(966005)(5660300001)(7736002)(189998001)(25786009)(305945005)(6506006)(5640700003)(6436002)(77096006)(6486002)(316002)(53936002)(66066001)(58126008)(68736007)(6116002)(82746002)(83716003)(102836003)(15650500001)(3846002)(81166006)(6512007)(33656002)(81156014)(6306002)(3280700002)(2501003)(2906002)(1730700003)(8676002)(2351001)(6246003)(83506002)(99286003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:BLUPR05MB276; H:BLUPR05MB275.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <E74D42092EB7C54482BBFA75FF476056@namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: c0aae371-35ef-4fc3-abce-08d51a69e6e6
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Oct 2017 23:00:48.9933 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BLUPR05MB276
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/3xuRK45bLi9Eh0Y6g_J71so_ZKg>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] two-week review of drafts related to notifications and subscriptions
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 23:00:52 -0000

Thank you to all those who participated in the review of
the drafts related to event notifications.  Recall that
our interest was to get a heartbeat from the working group
regarding the readiness of these drafts to progress to Last
Call.  As we see it, most of the discussion centered on the
subscribed-notifications draft, and we're optimistic that
the next update of that draft could be in shooting distance
to a Last Call.  Assuming that is true, would it make sense
to do that, or should we look at including other drafts in
a combo Last Call.  We understand that there is an interest
to take a vertical slice (yang-push, subscribed-notifications,
and netconf-notif) to Last Call together, but maybe it would
make more sense to do subscribed-notifications, netconf-notif,
and restconf-notif together, as the latter two drafts provide
the instance examples for the first draft.

What are your thoughts?

Thanks,
Kent and Mahesh


--

We’d like to direct the WG attention to the set of drafts related
to notifications and subscriptions, with the goal of getting a 
pulse on if the WG thinks they are ready to progress now.

To enable you get an overview and to see how the documents relate
to each other, this draft is a good place to start:  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voit-netconf-subscription-and-notif-overview-00.

The drafts related to this review are:

   -  draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications
   -  draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push
   -  draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications
   -  draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif
   -  draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages
 
While this is not an official WGLC, we will issue one if the 
response is positive. Please provide comments within two weeks.

Thanks,
Mahesh and Kent





_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=6EmQf9DJN6gYrH_xCp3oiMMsgNpXCh7lN3VAHxwuG-4&s=vrMmzT7gkE3A2xzCWX5U8WjjxlRtLR137nXwhyPqO3Q&e=

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email