Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 13 June 2018 06:02 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 E05AB130DE5 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 23:02:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 ZHe0I34cndDr for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 23:02:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anna.localdomain (firewallix.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.247]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A013713103C for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 23:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 46282222965E; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:02:16 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:02:16 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Cc: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180613060216.kicdlastkq4yhmzo@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <381e3937e0054984812ea69de97c7659@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180608.110205.217184993423575402.mbj@tail-f.com> <9f987f8f571e4a499c589f4be02c0407@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180608.162233.994500338881044294.mbj@tail-f.com> <acfc0df721cb475d9b1c829d1f7f5dd7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <A58C7A8F-B926-4417-8080-685C0DB5E040@juniper.net> <b44492127969401f8b72f2e3dd67d58e@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <4A685312-E065-4DF6-9BB1-BCC52947F1CA@juniper.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A685312-E065-4DF6-9BB1-BCC52947F1CA@juniper.net>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180512
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/6cD8kNInTdhpZQ7BNzE4nmXNY6A>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 06:02:31 -0000

On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:45:16PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
>  
> I'm okay with separation.  On one hand, it seems like common English, but
> it might be good to have it well-defined in this draft.  Still it seems 
> that the definition could be improved, maybe by contrasting it to an event?
> One is the what happened, the other a record about what happened...
>

Regarding terminology:

   Configured subscription: A subscription installed via configuration
   into a configuration datastore.

OK

   Dynamic subscription: A subscription agreed between subscriber and
   publisher created via an "establish-subscription" RPC.

Try to define what it is, avoiding tying it into a specific RPC.

   Event record: A set of information detailing an event.

   Event stream: A continuous, chronologically ordered set of events
   aggregated under some context.

   Notification message: Information intended for a receiver indicating
   that one or more event(s) have occurred.

RFC 7950 does not define 'notification' in the terminology section (it
probably should). But RFC 6241 has this definition:

   o  notification: A server-initiated message indicating that a certain
      event has been recognized by the server.

So how do 'event record' and 'notification' relate to each other? Are
RFC 6241 notifications the same as notifications defined here? If so,
why not use a common definition? (It seems RFC 5277 likes to talk about
'event notifications' - so we even have a third term for what may be the
same.)

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>