Re: [netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-01
Pierre Francois <pierre.francois.ietf@gmail.com> Tue, 10 November 2020 12:05 UTC
Return-Path: <pierre.francois.ietf@gmail.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 1FDD23A09F5 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:05:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 fX0mbI2mDNgd for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua1-x932.google.com (mail-ua1-x932.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::932]) (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 3DC533A09F0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua1-x932.google.com with SMTP id k12so1359145uae.13 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:05:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xXeh9PEBndbE/0qq3cYyfhhkB17iqCuKA1SVrT40mVw=; b=g8nAMsVXKy2RCryoWGmhFq8l44Q4MdFmf7V/vy64WkfL5StdB2nHbokU213A6WoEDN +2cQSFc5Z993Mt9T9tSyS5arJYm63loBDGwNPe4RQUlc9HbCqiOaWVvAOe4BGfjZ5WKw NjCN++K2bSzS50lbTyhs2/effcx17ztDW3m2dLEJsUmyCLSu+Bdfw98x9G0gG4bnXjPY Pa0Yar8FFftm6YEKhcOmRWCacL8++j2llXZIuKEId/XR7cuF17P6bRXq7woOm3l9656l pVYx4zJifIv7lmPQDMnCtuUVN1+Lx5eR3VEQSTnqD76UW9hDior2REJ5rxff6D0tCLRG qtLQ==
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=xXeh9PEBndbE/0qq3cYyfhhkB17iqCuKA1SVrT40mVw=; b=goXj1FOjgGyCXLTphbuYANCao3BB6iLyrwt0DwABA++bGkxp/sM6dnO4tKGGiaGUU1 HYw2uTKhqyEQWA/Ubn1I6KEJP55HBICq371vIQFYUexHq8HwBHLXXr+lK8LdPfWoOUVg SkXPYRxbXEOE3lVgfyssN0492mrhFVAz9qMicrepwMQOnNpv2DJnD8NqMAgOXiF5+HJL iCOmjodvpkj02SHOjmzP79QGTASTG+WsxT6vNqGM6OqcwXJZJYD4lB8tsfBs3SY7V4K+ WUnrZ1XrLz1xzUaaSVXS97DkWXDdXAqprts31swXlghRl7vJF4kigzT1Izqg7nLEzedR hbAA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533/QvcvXINJvT+RVHDItvg1RxvoCym+QO0CdkpWGAPGs+MS1Aj7 L1GoqbuBH9ooKM3Ayx2R6K2jWlLUMMDD3zFSAjg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWNRHGoueC5WqL21JlgVUTCHeY3ijbZ4b4omtsNfns9LVSh5zUPS8nfhgL84fNwmsTLOVI37ulr/56aUv2iOY=
X-Received: by 2002:ab0:6cb6:: with SMTP id j22mr8902604uaa.82.1605009941242; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 04:05:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CABCOCHR-K3mdoY=qebmSHe7pDof_i6c75rt4_4Mg00dHR021qA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHR-K3mdoY=qebmSHe7pDof_i6c75rt4_4Mg00dHR021qA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pierre Francois <pierre.francois.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:05:30 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFNmoOERL2mUppXWNAg_2v4hQRNhmV6uO_PEo-z8kcNSShy8kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000068a85205b3bf7fae"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9d05siSN1pB70kfaVERuZL6QB_k>
Subject: Re: [netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-01
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, 10 Nov 2020 12:05:44 -0000
Andy, Thank you for the thorough review. I agree with everything, mostly. I'll cover your questions during the meeting. Cheers, Pierre. Le lun. 9 nov. 2020 à 18:17, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> a écrit : > Hi, > > I have some comments and questions about this draft. > > sec 3.1: > > > > * [I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages] describes the structure > of the Notification Message for single notifications and bundled > notifications.* > > - The new notification header is very complex, not implemented by anybody, > and therefore unproven. The RFC 5277 notification message is widely > deployed > and should be supported. > > > sec 3.2 > > > > > > * * S represents the space of encoding type specified in the ET field. > When S is unset, ET represents the standard encoding types as > defined in this document. When S is set, ET represents a private > space to be freely used for non standard encodings.* > - This new "S bit" payload encoding is not interoperable > A) different vendors can pick whatever values they want for the ET > field > B) There is no reliable way to identify the vendor (or publisher > software details) > in this protocol > > > > * * Observation-Domain-ID is a 32-bit identifier of the Observation > Domain that led to the production of the notification message, as > defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-notification-messages]. * > > - Why is this field needed if it is already in the new notification > message? > > > > > * * The Message ID is generated continuously by the sender of UDP- > Notif messages. Different subscribers share the same Message ID > sequence.* > - It is not clear why the Message-ID field is present. This seems to be > all > the text about it. The field is OK, but needs clarification > > A) What is the receiver supposed to do to validate a Message-ID? > This implies that some state is maintained by the receiver > B) Does this field increment by 1 for every message? Or increment by 1 > for every message from the same Observation-Domain-ID? > C) How is this field used if the Segmentation Option is used? > Suggest: all multi-PDU messages MUST have the same Message-ID in > each PDU. > D) The 2nd sentence is confusing (subscribers?) Maybe you mean that > different > subscriptions supported by the same Observation-Domain-ID share > the same Message-ID > > sec 3.3.1: > > > > > > * An implementation of this specification MUST NOT rely on IP > fragmentation by default to carry large messages. An implementation of > this specification MUST either restrict the size of individual messages > carried over this protocol, or support the segmentation option.* > > - This appears to be the only normative text about the application-level > fragmentation > and reassembly procedures. > A) Is the sender required to finish a multi-PDU message (i.e. send > segment 0 through N, in order) before sending a different Message-ID? > B) Is it legal to use the option if only 1 segment is sent (i.e., L bit > set for Segment 0) > C) Is it illegal to send any more segments for the same Message-ID after > the L bit has been sent? > > > Andy > > > _______________________________________________ > netconf mailing list > netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf >
- [netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-noti… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-… Mahesh Jethanandani
- Re: [netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-… Pierre Francois
- Re: [netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-… Pierre Francois
- Re: [netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-… Andy Bierman