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

"Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com> Tue, 18 August 2020 13:42 UTC

Return-Path: <rwilton@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 9DFCB3A0A38 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:42:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.597
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.597 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 header.b=a7zYXhMO; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=yaMC4AWg
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 wM5p-IOGFC3w for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:42:38 -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 543DF3A0A2D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 06:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=15544; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1597758158; x=1598967758; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=hkycSRon7lvDM30TSQAW+iKg1oo5D5psWB1uhmtqLXA=; b=a7zYXhMOb+unb42qEYvNuOEKJQ66IxUm6jzZC4mGxpvrlVqQxO84C1SC Giw9KJ1V6DgmbDQnzgSTS6GbJl2iQHPne2ekT8AZJNOFwsNL4UZwXbPvg EvoupWRRzqqWoZW7mm1NcNmYW11AR3gi2nTTxijW/SqYId9Rqv1t7TzhW o=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3AZ0/Fsx/BkMpLzf9uRHGN82YQeigqvan1NQcJ65?= =?us-ascii?q?0hzqhDabmn44+7ZRKN+vxxl1LPG4PW96EMh+nXtvXmXmoNqdaEvWsZeZNBHx?= =?us-ascii?q?kClY0NngMmDcLEbC+zLPPjYyEgWsgXUlhj8iKkOFROFcC4YVDO8TW+6DcIEU?= =?us-ascii?q?D5Mgx4bu3+Bo/ViZGx0Oa/s53eaglFnnyze7R3eR63tg7W8MIRhNhv?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CmEADP2Ttf/4cNJK1fHQEBPAEFBQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CAQkBgWGBIS8pKAdwWC8sCoQtg0YDjVmTfIRtglMDVQsBAQEMAQEjCgIEAQG?= =?us-ascii?q?ETAIXgggCJDgTAgMBAQsBAQUBAQECAQYEbYVcDIVxAQEBBBIRChMBATgPAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?IEQQBASsCAgIwHQgCBAESCBqDBYF+TQMuAQMLpSoCgTmIYXaBMoMBAQEFgTc?= =?us-ascii?q?EDEGDLhiCDgMGgTgBgnCDYoUYgRcdG4FBP4ERQ4JNPoJcAQECAQGBXSuCajO?= =?us-ascii?q?CLZMDhmGcTwqCYohkhXyLYoMAjw6OFZI7gW2IV5R8AgQCBAUCDgEBBYFqIyq?= =?us-ascii?q?BLXAVgyRQFwINgzqKcReBAgEJgkKFFIVCdDcCBgEJAQEDCXyPCAGBEAEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.76,327,1592870400"; d="scan'208,217";a="815417494"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 18 Aug 2020 13:42:37 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (xch-rcd-003.cisco.com [173.37.102.13]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 07IDgbVO006541 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:42:37 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-003.cisco.com (173.37.102.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:42:36 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 08:42:36 -0500
Received: from NAM10-BN7-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-003.cisco.com (64.101.210.230) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1497.2 via Frontend Transport; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:42:36 -0400
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=bJLMg2wAgFLWeDYCJvLi7K51HGD7XOfPoREpTsTxD7X0dJm0/PSG9tyX2JS7iQCJL05vS1+3bvjHvd2bsFCrQ69exCjZVSk2vmW4KvLJxX6IXZFJog7cpEteFouiVHEuCWdBUESMw7JlLvYTp9h7Cq68WfEbzmZFHb3Kt7ZXOnuSBQ42xXznXKRtaJHn7zG42uKgu+gLySgLEDPjg96bvqQQBGNSR7dRnVDIU1aKLkHgXRjDy4QJBlbuWO1pFLO1f+LceUYk/s0++Z/YN7ObZss7MVA2LyJgi3iCL2DWFoQsNgywxTimskS1h0pCuSasQDxfsoprSq5tp89oNg27WA==
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hkycSRon7lvDM30TSQAW+iKg1oo5D5psWB1uhmtqLXA=; b=H8B1zQZRCV4Gnj/lR6CZrP3l1LOk0Dvu9NpUYCWpl5SqzvDQNU4v9zEyFALR11TlZEjwKCtHEyoqXPppDlpRIEMR9TfznNHOHd3TYOYDzDT9wpvZRu7n197PyF9/ra0l5VCBPmn750lI0jZg1kWhULRNz4qsjP2eaWMKlpbpM2ezhITpthg4OWpUu/6o2+UbyjkA2/5ybVIVZK6RPorMPWyrKmde9/MUz4SI6RhbV8WoFfNz30ES5Sy3Qu+YrH75YCxUNCHcw2E+rbETBvYa05hZNwAwYYcUDlGDwMvKkfC8jiWime4uwJCk67y22QQadzKKeMUkhlmJ2bt03JI93A==
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cisco.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=cisco.com; dkim=pass header.d=cisco.com; arc=none
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=hkycSRon7lvDM30TSQAW+iKg1oo5D5psWB1uhmtqLXA=; b=yaMC4AWgIMi1i6V6K35jMpyvQqpIqBEyw7cf9H0gJQGNwmXmlY4i8S3tcvfe+Y/EjzGgR5qHdG5Cu0z4guPcGp6yVcc5lIdy3KQiWCjuUY9S3oT0/rpT4v68sF0ie30uuJKaYfpqF/eTHjwb1+XDHElzSDFZca2SoCgBCD9+C3Y=
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:190::17) by MN2PR11MB4112.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (2603:10b6:208:137::16) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.3283.22; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:42:35 +0000
Received: from MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4d3f:f3e:add7:dfc1]) by MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::4d3f:f3e:add7:dfc1%3]) with mapi id 15.20.3305.024; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:42:35 +0000
From: "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <rwilton@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
Thread-Index: AQHWa3Y6avwfNnDrJE+0cgibzhg5G6ktGCIAgBC2KdA=
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:42:35 +0000
Message-ID: <MN2PR11MB4366A4D447677823320BDC96B55C0@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <01000173c0b039d4-76bb4e31-9f40-4a5d-bdac-39512c8b4e9d-000000@us-east-1.amazonses.com> <01000173ca90a8d5-78b55d80-3a92-406a-8544-594dbe223735-000000@email.amazonses.com>
In-Reply-To: <01000173ca90a8d5-78b55d80-3a92-406a-8544-594dbe223735-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: watsen.net; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;watsen.net; dmarc=none action=none header.from=cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [82.15.79.32]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: d10187b6-d736-4944-8a5b-08d8437c90ba
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: MN2PR11MB4112:
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <MN2PR11MB41121522BEC6D35792592BFAB55C0@MN2PR11MB4112.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:10000;
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: TgvUvcrGsxwLu2cLurmnkebxOfFdke1OZxg7BhwN43+YUwpaTZ4qkL287zcMCXWQEbL9VNYCvucKYgLPVXO7k/getGvVj730cTkkHFPGAQuqjDykx5r8IU/kDNDBvdGr1ummWFNHUFAp2VfThB1VzfI8ctigSWrfmLdQLPakK1uY0ofK12k2e+wE4qBGOl7iix9+424khKjQQoKSbiMbSAnbM40RD865eqVG5B5w8PPJ3HlLKwTBgy/d4Mh/ND720/T1ghvCE/MgBguh0agodWOEKGXgPAzitQpX9Bdx8rf490Wa4uFiS02EyqHBdIFTvMfpu78eAPKdVGojMT9WMQaQ6efBw64vHmWTcqzanJ1r0ghIBukRqh9UnqWujHMFOzBBL3fKauujl01ILmUwxw==
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:255.255.255.255; CTRY:; LANG:en; SCL:1; SRV:; IPV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; H:MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; PTR:; CAT:NONE; SFS:(4636009)(346002)(136003)(366004)(396003)(376002)(39860400002)(9326002)(66446008)(76116006)(2906002)(8936002)(166002)(66946007)(71200400001)(110136005)(8676002)(26005)(66476007)(64756008)(9686003)(66556008)(478600001)(966005)(52536014)(7696005)(55016002)(316002)(33656002)(53546011)(6506007)(86362001)(83380400001)(186003)(5660300002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101;
x-ms-exchange-antispam-messagedata: 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
x-ms-exchange-transport-forked: True
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_MN2PR11MB4366A4D447677823320BDC96B55C0MN2PR11MB4366namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Internal
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: d10187b6-d736-4944-8a5b-08d8437c90ba
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 18 Aug 2020 13:42:35.5725 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-userprincipalname: OvPVtzINF6hvGa4xk85nmkqWJBCohcJJDMpVQhVqrgws/bq3bwSkFF/aEMDlXJm9EPFkVT+dVBPcaxWZtr+mUA==
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR11MB4112
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.13, xch-rcd-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-2.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/6emsdrB7CUISfe3qTbduhGVgAG0>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 13:42:41 -0000

Hi,

[Also as a contributor]

My comments are broadly similar to Kent’s.

I believe that a UDP transport for dataplane telemetry where getting accurate fresh data quickly is more important than getting every update.  This is particularly true if a subsequent notification will cover any lost values anyway (e.g. periodic statistics).

I suspect that having a mechanism to allow for the telemetry data being encrypted is probably also important.  If the WG were to adopt a draft without this, then as Benoit mentioned, I would have to test the water with the IESG to determine whether that would be acceptable.

I also note that the draft allows for a GPB encoding of the telemetry data, but I’m not aware of any formal standard encoding of YANG data in GPB, and there is a choice between whether the GPB encoding is generic for all YANG data, or specific GPB encodings are useful for the specific data that is being encoded.

Regards,
Rob


From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: 07 August 2020 21:16
To: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif

[as a contributor]


   1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?

I believe that it is important to enable publishers to send notifications using a UDP-based transport.   This belief is based on my experience from when at Juniper dealing with very high-end firewalls with enormous log output.

I believe that the NETCONF WG is the appropriate WG for this work, having defined RFC 8639 (SN), RFC 8640 (NN), and RFC 8650 (RN).



   2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

I have read the current version of the draft and find it to be a reasonable start.

Presuming the “receiver-instances” augmentation defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-04#section-3 takes off, the module defined in this draft should be updated to augment into it instead.

I appreciate Section 5 (Applicability) noting that the UDP-transport is primarily for the data plane (not the control plane), as it doesn’t matter so much if data plane notifications are lost.  This addresses (I think) the issue that Rob Shakir raised before: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-103-netconf (search for “Rob S”).  That said, it is unclear to me how a receiver could configure this while, e.g., configuring control plane notifications to be sent via a TCP-based transport such as “https-notif”.


3) regarding Juergen’s questions:

  a) I am willing to substantially review the drafts.
  b) I am willing to contribute to the discussion of any issue.
  c) I do NOT plan to implement the technology defined.



Kent