Re: [Netconf] [yang-doctors] YANG Doctor question: empty mandatory choice? (was RE: YangPush now)

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:35:04PM +0000, Eric Voit (evoit) wrote:
> 
> One transport for all receivers was a voted WG decision at IETF 101.  Some of the reasons from threads like:
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg13875.html
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14899.html 
> 
> include:
> (1) Simpler YANG model
> (2) Simpler implementation possible as a single configured subscription need be connected to only one transport
> (3) Simpler implementation in that there is no expectation set on the publisher that there will be no transport loss if the transport type is reconfigured for a particular receiver mid-subscription.
> (4) Separation of implementation/troubleshooting concerns, as only one transport is involved
>

With the proposed choice construct, I think

(1) does not hold,
(2) seems unclear (why are multiple identitical subscriptions for
    different transports cheaper than one subscriptions with multiple
    transports?)
(3) I do not understand
(4) I do not understand (since you can easily distinguish the receiver
    and label log messages by receiver)

If we would be serious about simplification to lower the point of
entry, we would have only a single receiver for a configured
subscription. Allowing multiple receivers as long as they use the
same transport seems like an arbitrary CLR.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>