Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Mon, 21 September 2020 22:31 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 C117B3A0BEC for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:31:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 MRbQhY-e-dnz for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:31:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5D8A3A0B41 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id y2so15812321lfy.10 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:31:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZUriNswak3paCGfWsp6CCXoxXlY9+9oQklrWLVBldAE=; b=yvJauXKCQf/znL0+R/pPj9OBiqT04OwRWBHH+KScBuchk+VXMe3uWQpthllmlifTo/ FHgjDg8mar49LQ3P4ejXsutDy0owhdQwmuNohUfqBOExB3hJCDr1Nvx2uRVucEYlmjyE ZzC4u3BAG/dAimsiB64VwKXz1RvN807bzlsTpy9cWUjA5xgcwdjzWEBGTr//cFHJ8TnE k0sB5A1AOzFe5FeRyRbKqB/3UIWl8UDgnhzzHMoj4RTLJIkw+KLUOB9i91F0Mb67OzLJ VMMfGkDDvphGgxYBi82GIz4gvLFe3FevNrmgfrVRYHkj4Oj93ZkePZYGJM/rfOAl5otv aYwg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZUriNswak3paCGfWsp6CCXoxXlY9+9oQklrWLVBldAE=; b=jQAVQehyXjprS0DmTM5jQDmVdzezALb9Fw3pGScHLz3chADKtdEHHnzejtSaYEh8d+ apRf7SKz2Sw02KXLysZSDD4IcrOZXc2TxYxOQe2I53U6IlAg7eK7asMvoupa6+3D+522 Rq2UG1NO3tFtQezeDwwqUIxlhvV/rFhVV2ECF5Wv6BDKgKqea9xmkWWYn8TcfZK0EK4b WxaCuUrY07wBVzfulK7o4az1t7Z4vZZnD/uxlRDGKVhBPTcORLdQwGw+fYMd3+4+84b7 WD0bDqIqSGAPHE093eSmJwJy+PqPgR7f+aykZ+p8LR7vqxPa2hyPOJKkDdt4IF7ESpIA eF3g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306ZLQgWYyMSRDxWuxFj83a2hoJx2TjnsxfuOsdUriuXZvyxI/E Whm1u0wu9JxttR/+9SW/yQmjsR6kp5MmfAXi9Jf9TuFkXmhC1w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyW8e61EevYU9SpChnfGc6lPSTDyq5lvoHG8x1XU9fdIJe/0I+P8a9JN5itjIuZbXLwXxts/e35NguN3Ke07Y0=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:6818:: with SMTP id d24mr594418lfc.107.1600727475952; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <01000173c0b07b33-ad0b793a-7afc-4b39-95f8-2f50574d57bb-000000@us-east-1.amazonses.com> <CABCOCHTP5boMJpCvhjd=Ur9sTr-+Ea0gSzOJnY_YToHGdurhsA@mail.gmail.com> <e7ccc6495dd34c4fae15a1697ccd1af5@huawei.com> <01000174b2ba9c57-cbc0d353-8d30-4885-8769-1ea869b4d0be-000000@email.amazonses.com>
In-Reply-To: <01000174b2ba9c57-cbc0d353-8d30-4885-8769-1ea869b4d0be-000000@email.amazonses.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:31:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHR9hBn+vYg-Y8qfWd-Vj5qEqcAuGNrq_Xg+fRiiVALkVA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000963afe05afda689f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/50V2F5Ej9ccfIRj0Be3G8ftlevI>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
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: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 22:31:20 -0000

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:13 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> Does Tianran’s response resolve your "I do not understand why the client
> needs this feature” comment?   As it currently stands, your comment reads
> like an objection.
>
> The comment regarding if this work should be in its own RFC or as a Bis is
> a process-question to chairs can ask the WG after determining support for
> moving the work forward.
>
> Kent and Mahesh, as NETCONF chairs.
>
>
>

The overall approach to the binary push features seems a bit incoherent to
me.
I don't see much value in this draft, but no harm either so I do not have
an objection
to adoption.  Perhaps there is some debugging value here but since the
architecture
really does not define message generators as sub-components of a configured
subscription,
a client cannot expect any sort of consistent implementation of this field.


Andy





> On Aug 10, 2020, at 11:28 PM, Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Andy,
>
>
>
> Thanks for your review.
>
> Basically your understanding is correct.
>
> The background is about the distributed notif, which the global
> subscription will be decomposed to several component subscriptions.
>
> And the client need to compose the data from multiple publishers. It need
> to know if all the pieces of one data are received.
>
> Current solution depends on ietf-netconf-notification-messages. I just
> found it’s expired!
>
> I would like to discuss with authors about the plan on that draft.
> Fortunately you are one coauthor. Could you please help on the answer?
>
> Otherwise, we can seek other way.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tianran
>
>
>
> *From:* netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org
> <netconf-bounces@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:39 AM
> *To:* Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
> *Cc:* netconf@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for
> draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I am trying to understand what problem this draft attempts to solve.
>
> It appears from the solution proposal is that the problem to be solved is
>
> the lack of message generator identifiers associated with configured
> subscriptions.
>
> These identifiers could presumably help a client understand some
> implementation details
>
> related to a subscription.  The solution seems to rely on the
> message-generator-id
>
> field in the notification message (which does not exist in current RFCs).
>
>
>
> I do not understand why the client needs this feature.
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
>
> NETCONF WG,
>
> Per the previous email sent moments ago, the chairs would like to solicit
> input on the following draft:
>
>
>
>    Title: Subscription to Distributed Notifications
>
>    Link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
>    Abstract:
>
>       This documents describes extensions to the YANG notifications
>
>       subscription to allow metrics being published directly from
>
>       processors on line cards to target receivers, while subscription is
>
>       still maintained at the route processor in a distributed forwarding
>
>       system.
>
>
>
>
> In particular, please discuss adoption-suitability as it regards to the
> following questions:
>
>
>
>     1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
>     2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?
>
>
>
> PS: this message is itself not an adoption poll, but rather an attempt to
> gauge interest/support for a potential future adoption poll.
>
> NETCONF Chairs
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
>