IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Last Call on yang-push-17

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 28 August 2018 18:14 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@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 B88BB130E07 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:14:49 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 ehJujJ6unqLs for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99E0C130E14 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 11:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10448; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1535480087; x=1536689687; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=ukxwuvo/bgUh2dyAJ3sO9xHZ2NkvwuyqLT+X2lLIOXs=; b=RB8+rbLVqCyAhkvZjnxchRrAezNSi+COt2P48BR2xhrSgV7T1BsdEBiZ 1f1fcawBMOVrzZInNPxM3TaBeaCPFTOMlWzVNFCfQNV1rRUAd4HS5nnt4 nHf1uI6KEU3YRomNSZiXoP0SKk36QzEjws4f4gXfvxg1zsPz8QwbB4C0j M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ATAgCtj4Vb/5RdJa1aGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEIAQEBAYJXeGV/MoNolDuCDZB1hy0LhGwCF4JhITcVAQIBAQIBAQJtKIU3AQEBAQMjCkwQAgEIFRAdAgICMCUCBA4NgxqBHWSkHYEuimGKEBeBQT+EJIUMCYJqglcCjQuOJwkCj2Yfjk2TJgIRFIEkMyKBUnAVgyWQUowqgRwBAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.53,300,1531785600"; d="scan'208,217";a="163149173"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 Aug 2018 18:14:46 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w7SIEkpK031493 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Aug 2018 18:14:46 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:14:45 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1367.000; Tue, 28 Aug 2018 14:14:45 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: "Tim Jenkins (timjenki)" <timjenki=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>, Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Last Call on yang-push-17
Thread-Index: AQHUPhaKQhG4fwKiUkSHvZFCs3Awe6TVcobw
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 18:14:45 +0000
Message-ID: <e1553e32631443328bb807b9ad9c95c4@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <D6033FA2-D168-44E6-BB3C-BDE168165606@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <D6033FA2-D168-44E6-BB3C-BDE168165606@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.82.244.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_e1553e32631443328bb807b9ad9c95c4XCHRTP013ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.151, xch-rtp-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-12.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/9sPkW_LNiQMm5OI0sUxWB_eVYhY>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Last Call on yang-push-17
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 18:14:50 -0000

Hi Tim,

From: Tim Jenkins, August 27, 2018 10:59 AM


<snip>

13. Section 4.4.4, paragraph 1:

The resynch cannot apply to configured subscriptions? I would think the logic to apply its use would be independent of how the subscription is created. However, with multiple receivers, there may be issues with the use of this.

<Eric>  Allowing configured subscriptions to optionally support resynch RPC is possible, but it makes at least two things more complex:
(1) Right now the publisher doesn’t need to support any dynamic signaling interactions with a configured receiver.
(2) You are correct that the RPC would only be relevant per-receiver, rather than per subscription.  So the publisher will actually perform a slightly different behavior with a resynch request.

My suggestion therefore would be to tweak the text in 4.4.4 to “this RPC is supported for on-change subscriptions previously established using an "establish-subscription" RPC.”

And the definition in the YANG model would be tweaked:

OLD: This RPC can only be invoked on the same session on which the subscription was established (using an establish-subscription RPC).

NEW: This RPC can only be invoked on the same transport session on which a subscription is currently active.

This would allow future support of the resynch-subscription RPC for configured subscriptions if turns out people want that in the future.

Eric

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email