Re: [Netconf] RFC 8030 on Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 08 December 2016 22:44 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 7CC55129AC1 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:44:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.417
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.417 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 2DRWiTVsbwXm for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:44:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3DD8129ADB for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 14:43:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=23986; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1481237024; x=1482446624; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=aPv4zlmb9buMnyqcKYQETwxPsIN1VdlUKRQuwToChjs=; b=mlnHiZkmvRpdr1CT5kAIa/3nhANT5o5JikPoIPJRviEVqHq1V0shgb10 gm/g/LgnUNtN8m2rO2o1tUadPSAV9nsPNT8Thds5MGHC1JMhnQgHQzzT0 fwXBH+zuORFuLo0YfhxOtZ7lq9JI+TvfD66mvQvtZa92Z5Xc9c2JAzFIQ Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AZAQCL4UlY/5BdJa1aAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJzRAEBAQEBH1qBBgeNRJcTh3WHaoUigggeAQqEQmxKAhqBYD8UAQIBAQEBAQEBYiiEaAEBAQMBAQEhCiEgCwUJAgIBCBAEAQMMARoDAgICGQYGCgEUEQIEDgUIDAcCBIgwAw8IDqc0gimHOw2DZgEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR0FhjmEW4E9gQuBYQUELQkBFQgJggU4gl0FiGiMF4U2NQGGToMKDINWg1uBfIR9iVGHZYFuhDWEDQEfN4EZFA+DNx+BXXKGa4EhgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,321,1477958400"; d="scan'208,217";a="184173626"
Received: from rcdn-core-8.cisco.com ([173.37.93.144]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 08 Dec 2016 22:43:43 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-8.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id uB8Mhh2g016861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 8 Dec 2016 22:43:43 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 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:43:42 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 8 Dec 2016 17:43:42 -0500
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] RFC 8030 on Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push
Thread-Index: AQHSUXLztc76XEU1XEiH8L24gHUkmaD+a4GQgACKEYD//65EAA==
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:43:42 +0000
Message-ID: <62f32dbc2c334840a1f5ae3bf35dcac3@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <20161208164203.94881B80232@rfc-editor.org> <20161208164830.GB91424@elstar.local> <72371edbd9db4d57826acad656c35788@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <CABCOCHQYiu8=GejQxuBJiih3S-=C6gbjU4ZdRQ2wkyNH6b7jsA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHQYiu8=GejQxuBJiih3S-=C6gbjU4ZdRQ2wkyNH6b7jsA@mail.gmail.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: [10.118.56.226]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_62f32dbc2c334840a1f5ae3bf35dcac3XCHRTP013ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/45zzkdn0uGWCx1kwuenKVs6HD0k>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] RFC 8030 on Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 08 Dec 2016 22:44:12 -0000

I could have also answered that RFC 8030 is a proxy caching protocol optimized for intermittent/ low-power connectivity to smartphones.

It would be difficult to retrofit to this environment.  I would be intrigued to see the result if someone attempted this.

Eric

From: Andy Bierman, December 8, 2016 5:28 PM

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com<mailto:evoit@cisco.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the pointer Juergen,

The RFC does support common functional requirements such as:
- DDoS protection method for HTTP2
- Prioritized messages
- many subscriptions per transport session
- others

But there were several reasons it doesn't match sufficiently for reuse with yang data stores.  Some deltas between the environments include:
- Push Service as a Subscriber proxy, with caching and possible push update aggregation (intended to save radio power)
- multiple resource targets within a single subscription
- configured subscription support
- content/event filtering
- yang
- event dampening, on-change, and periodic
- Use of GET to subscription resource (GRPC compatibility)
- negotiation

Therefore I see this as a useful reference and context rather than something normative that we can build upon.


I don't agree that all these things are needed or they cannot be done as part of the application.
Not sure what YANG support means either.  This does not seem to affect the bytes on the wire.

I prefer to separate the protocol layers.  The part that selects what events to send and
other optimizations related to content selection should not be coupled to how notifications
are delivered.



We shouldn't forget this though as there are also items we might want to adopt at some future point:
- the Subscriber proxy model
- push update TTL
- tracked acknowledgement of push updates

Eric


Andy

> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, December 8, 2016 11:49 AM
>
> Hi,
>
> this may be relevant for some of the discussions here.
>
> /js
>
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:42:03AM -0800, rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org> wrote:
> > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
> >
> >
> >         RFC 8030
> >
> >         Title:      Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push
> >         Author:     M. Thomson,
> >                     E. Damaggio,
> >                     B. Raymor, Ed.
> >         Status:     Standards Track
> >         Stream:     IETF
> >         Date:       December 2016
> >         Mailbox:    martin.thomson@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>,
> >                     elioda@microsoft.com<mailto:elioda@microsoft.com>,
> >                     brian.raymor@microsoft.com<mailto:brian.raymor@microsoft.com>
> >         Pages:      31
> >         Characters: 68069
> >         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
> >
> >         I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-12.txt
> >
> >         URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8030
> >
> >         DOI:        10.17487/RFC8030
> >
> > This document describes a simple protocol for the delivery of real-
> > time events to user agents.  This scheme uses HTTP/2 server push.
> >
> > This document is a product of the Web-Based Push Notifications Working
> Group of the IETF.
> >
> > This is now a Proposed Standard.
> >
> > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
> > protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and
> > suggestions for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of
> > the Official Internet Protocol Standards
> > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state
> > and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
> >
> > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
> >   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> >   https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
> >
> > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
> > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
> >
> > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
> > author of the RFC in question, or to rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org<mailto:rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>.
> > Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are
> > for unlimited distribution.
> >
> >
> > The RFC Editor Team
> > Association Management Solutions, LLC
> >
> >
>
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf