Re: [Netconf] a joint discussion on dynamic subscription

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 14 June 2018 14:19 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 D88AB12777C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:19:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 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_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, 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 KVdueAKTOVtc for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 323A1130E13 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 07:19:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5571; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1528985976; x=1530195576; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=E+AP42H5rXxL+zGyHKSuBKoXzLNiv1r5mu7YhjqpxZg=; b=kzfk6iBl5MXIIPUXFw1EK6Ww01Ef0+X4GQZA7RkuERCtS5g9M+H0W9zS /JHXF0B25VylvpDxAI5z5I+i3KiXIjT78Qc+H64z3x39PQ/WMRI1m1YdQ FvYYlmTFh8V4JjJWWmAhfug7R5bv+MFyScgKlQA2SKS+pVm8wZoxG9yur I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DoAQA/eCJb/5pdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNIYn8oCphEgX+UbYF4CyOESQKCRSE1FwECAQEBAQEBAm0?= =?us-ascii?q?cDIUoAQEBAwE6PwUHBAIBCBEEAQEBDREJBzIUCQgBAQQBDQUIgxyBdwgPrFC?= =?us-ascii?q?IRoFjBYhMgVQ/hBuDEwKBSoVsApkOCQKFd4kAjUCKDYcNAhETAYEkHwE1gVJ?= =?us-ascii?q?wFYJ+giEXg0WKUQFvjx+BGgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,222,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="410356132"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 14 Jun 2018 14:19:35 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5EEJYhm018142 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:19:35 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:19:34 -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 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 10:19:34 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, "Zhengguangying (Walker)" <zhengguangying@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: a joint discussion on dynamic subscription
Thread-Index: AdQCx01ede4gaRHPTgG2WyMdkd0r2gARka+AADD1vgAACyj/gAAFRvqA
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 14:19:33 +0000
Message-ID: <7a67e1295a1942d69d9c4039717f378a@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21B55CCDB7@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <b256b91c7cbc4b3093c858e55c912f88@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180614.091828.21142123428745204.mbj@tail-f.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21B55CE3F0@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21B55CE3F0@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.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: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/4aJxYLQUwWocsTmFCBVeDqvc3Zc>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] a joint discussion on dynamic subscription
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 14 Jun 2018 14:19:39 -0000

> From: Tianran Zhou, June 14, 2018 8:38 AM
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:mbj@tail-f.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 3:18 PM
> > To: evoit@cisco.com
> > Cc: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>om>; Alexander Clemm
> > <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>om>; Zhengguangying (Walker)
> > <zhengguangying@huawei.com>om>; netconf@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: a joint discussion on dynamic subscription
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > Hi Tianran,
> > >
> > > > From: Tianran Zhou, June 12, 2018 11:47 PM
> > > >
> > > > Hi Eric,
> > > >
> > > > When we are discussing the draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel, we
> > > > find a conflict with current dynamic subscription design.
> > > > 1. The dynamic subscription requires notification to use the same
> > > > channel as the subscription.
> > >
> > > This is true when you look at the NETCONF transport draft.  However
> > > this is *not* required by the base subscribed-notification draft.
> > > And in fact, the HTTP transport draft might not use the same logical
> > > channel.  E.g., see how the URI is returned within:
> > > https://github.com/netconf-wg/notif-restconf/blob/master/draft-ietf-
> > > ne
> > > tconf-restconf-notif-05.txt
> > >
> > > So if you wanted to define some transport session independence for a
> > > UDP transport, subscribed-notifications should permit that.  And if
> > > you believe there is something in the text which prohibits this, let
> > > me know.
> >
> > Cool!  I think that this should be explcitly described in the
> > subscribed-notifications document.
> >
> > In the case of RESTCONF, decision to use a separate channel for the
> > notifs is implicit in the transport of the request to establish-subscription.
> >
> > In the case of UDP, I think the idea is that the
> > establish-subscription is sent over any protocol that can do RPCs
> > (NETCONF, RESTCONF, ...), but then some specific input parameter
> > informs the server that the notifs are supposed to be sent over some other
> transport.
> 
> Yes. I did not see this is the current RPC. Maybe similar the configured
> subscription, to describe transport of the receiver.

draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif contains a YANG model and examples showing how transport specific parameters can be augmented to the "establish-subscription RPC".  Search the document for "URI".

On other addition...  Several months ago we chatted that the multi-channel line-card separation and the UDP transport might be supported by different YANG models.  This should allow any parameters needed for multi-line card to be supportable without also requiring the corresponding implementation to also support UDP transport.

Eric

> > While reading the text about sessions, I found this:
> >
> > In 2.4.3:
> >
> >    The "modify-subscription" operation permits changing the terms of an
> >    existing dynamic subscription established on that transport session
> >    via "establish-subscription".
> >
> > Which session does "that transport session" mean?  Perhaps simply:
> >
> > NEW:
> >
> >    The "modify-subscription" operation permits changing the terms of an
> >    existing dynamic subscription.
> >
> >
> > > > 2. The RPC does not have the input information about the receiver
> > > > because the above assumption.
> > > >
> > > > However, when we talk about the distributed data collection (multi
> > > > data originators), the publication channel is always different
> > > > from the subscription channel.
> > >
> > > While it likely isn't what you want, even with NETCONF, the single
> > > NETCONF session doesn't means that distributed line card generation
> > > of the notification messages is impossible.  For example, the
> > > inclusion of the header object message-generator-id (as defined
> > > within
> > > draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages) allows the notification
> > > message generation to be distributed onto linecards even if the
> > > messages themselves are still driven back to a central transport
> > > session.  Note that I am not recommending this, but the
> > > specifications would support this.
> > >
> > > > So either the distributed data collection does not support dynamic
> > > > subscription, or current dynamic subscription definition may need
> > > > modification.
> > >
> > > I think for UDP, you will want to define a way to bind the lifecycle
> > > of the dynamic subscription's channels across multiple line cards.
> > > This will require some thinking as well as coordination within the
> > > publisher.
> >
> > But this is an implementation detail.  However, it is true that the
> > specification must work out the fate-sharing details between the
> > session that sent the establish-subscription and the notif channel.
> > Just as in the "restconf" draft.
> 
> We can just describe this fate-sharing requirement explicitly in the document.
> On implementation, I do not think it's hard to bind the lifecycle of the
> subscription channel and the publication channel.
> 
> > /martin
> >
> >
> >
> > > Perhaps returning multiple URIs (one for each linecard) might be
> > > something which could make this easier.  If you go down this path,
> > > you still will need to fate-share the lifecycle of the subscription
> > > across all of those line cards.
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > > What's your thoughts?
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Tianran
> > >