Re: [netconf] [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 25 June 2021 14:31 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 E21DD3A1A66; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:31:28 -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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 jBDqsABis7-l; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:31:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CAF8C3A1A60; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:31:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fraeml739-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.200]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4GBK4P0TGwz6DBYt; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 22:23:49 +0800 (CST)
Received: from dggeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.142) by fraeml739-chm.china.huawei.com (10.206.15.220) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 16:31:19 +0200
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com (10.1.199.152) by dggeml704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.142) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2176.2; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 22:31:17 +0800
Received: from dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) by dggeml753-chm.china.huawei.com ([10.1.199.152]) with mapi id 15.01.2176.012; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 22:31:16 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "core@ietf.org" <core@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription
Thread-Index: AddpzM/nht0jvow6SDipme2i6FvtBQ==
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:31:16 +0000
Message-ID: <c9c30c87167f4d73a783d5aca8ee3f63@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.52.202.106]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/7iGhdO0smuYiM2kEwTA3x8FatxE>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription
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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:31:29 -0000

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Michael Richardson [mailto:mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca] 
发送时间: 2021年6月25日 9:05
收件人: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>om>; netconf@ietf.org; core@ietf.org
主题: Re: [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription


Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
    > I had to back to RFC8641, which I don't know well at all, to be sure I
    > understood the xpath criteria.  I guess I don't understand how RFC8641
    > and this document can be used for non-XML serialized YANG interactions.

    > If bandwidth is at a premium, wouldn't you want to use
    > draft-ietf-core-comi-11 (YANG in CBOR) rather than XML?  At which
    > point, the obvious interaction with RFC7641 would need to be explained?

    > It seems that the netconf (RESTCONF) and CORECONF groups should spend
    > some more time together.

I didn't finish my thought here.
Specifically, it seems that the CORE WG is doing a lot of stuff with CoAP Observes and SENML and all sorts of interesting triggers.

It seems that there ought to be more common work here.
Routers are really the original Things Of Internet.
[Qin]: data modeling language such as YANG can be common work for both CORE WG and NETCONF WG,
But they may choose different transport protocol, such as NETCONF, RESTCONF, HTTP 2.0, COAP, MQTT, COMI
Secondly, I think it will be nice to separate constrained device management from resource unconstrained network device management,
Constraint device as IoT device can be temperature sensor, current, voltage sensor which can be seen as affiliated devices pertaining to resource unstrained network device.
In data center scenarios, we do a lot of such affiliated devices or sensors such as air conditioner, water leakage alarm sensor deployed together with data center switch devices.
These IoT devices only use MQTT/COAP/HTTP to communicate with their IoT platform, for data center switch devices, you may still rely on network management protocols such as NETCONF,
SNMP, gRPC, etc.
Do you see this differently? Michael?
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide