IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 22 March 2017 15:28 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 CAF4112997E for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:28:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.023
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.023 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM=0.5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-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
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 gI2njZFfbcxx for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:28:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 039E6129495 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 08:28:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2693; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1490196509; x=1491406109; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BeH6Nv5rEP69GLRLdsYA7D3be3dOddrnLdlUNrKRNpU=; b=ilcAwu4qXfvyuRFdpSGJkNkOw0GdzXy0YGejc3eTkXfOwml2nqnpvY1F nBcioCCMOpJVMLU3t/yh6u4T0me7OH92Hn8jCfnoyKXRsejZ52eXwAA4L RtLK/pn+xXDfOtsAEfybAzKBQXhU9BYTdFMj9Skj+cXNlQvimANjcGwuN 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ATAQACl9JY/5RdJa1aAxkBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNRYYEKB41qkWKIFYsjgg+CDiqFLkoCgyk/GAECAQEBAQEBAWsohRUBAQEBAgF5BQcCAgIBCBABBAEBAScHGwYRFAkIAgQBDQUIiWQDDQgOrUKHMg2CfwEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAR0FhkmEb4JRgWYBAQU3ERWFHgWQHot5OgGOE4QqkTiKa4h0AR84gQRZFYcZdQGHUoEhgQ0BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.36,205,1486425600"; d="scan'208";a="223519840"
Received: from rcdn-core-12.cisco.com ([173.37.93.148]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 22 Mar 2017 15:28:28 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-12.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v2MFSOQ1019536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:28:28 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:28:25 -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 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 11:28:25 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
CC: Mehmet Ersue <mersue@gmail.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
Thread-Index: AQHSohv/7XgFhfmC527VzIToNP21LaGf0wcQgADu7ICAAA7dgIAADVaAgAAcycA=
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:28:24 +0000
Message-ID: <61da6eab1b314c7ba4caf8ac08d8fbf9@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <005101d2975f$ae87ac20$0b970460$@ndzh.com> <017d01d29769$0df70b20$29e52160$@gmail.com> <010701d29771$a45f66e0$ed1e34a0$@ndzh.com> <026601d2977f$8d059600$a710c200$@gmail.com> <685B9088-7557-4C6E-9A8F-54C3208DB312@juniper.net> <7217bc23-0e1e-c250-929d-e18c3f0a800f@cisco.com> <07b601d2a197$9865d5b0$c9318110$@gmail.com> <20170321082015.GC35044@elstar.local> <0f17c698ae2645988692ba1eef007d79@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <37950223-F83B-40FD-8CA4-9A790D0A917E@nic.cz> <20170322084751.GA37843@elstar.local> <804C3246-DE92-40CD-9A46-6CC662FE9727@nic.cz>
In-Reply-To: <804C3246-DE92-40CD-9A46-6CC662FE9727@nic.cz>
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: [10.41.32.48]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/AM6I3Hto0FomFU2MZRQ0Oe4crHE>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 22 Mar 2017 15:28:32 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:lhotka@nic.cz]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2017 5:36 AM
> To: Jürgen Schönwälder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
> Cc: Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com>; Mehmet Ersue
> <mersue@gmail.com>; Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
> 
> 
> > On 22 Mar 2017, at 09:47, Juergen Schoenwaelder
> <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:54:39AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> >>
> >>> There are two different needs:
> >>>
> >>> (1) RESTCONF over HTTP2:  This is what you are asking for, and I would
> love to see this as well.  As far as I know, nobody is currently defining this.
> >>
> >> I wonder: is this needed? AFAIK, HTTP/2 methods are semantically
> equivalent to those of 1.1. We have a working implementation of RESTCONF
> over HTTP/2 (only) and I am not aware of any change in RESTCONF that was
> be needed because of HTTP version.

HTTP2 has a superset of capabilities vs. HTTP1.1.   There are new elements which are quite useful to expose to RESTCONF.

We had a thread on this in 2015.  You can see some of the possibilities at:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg10426.html

> >
> > I _assume_ there is not much needed but someone has to go and check
> > the details.
> >
> >> Regarding HTTP/2 Server Push, its purpose is IMO different, so it cannot
> serve as a replacement to SSE.
> >
> > Is that just a feeling or a claim or is there additional technical
> > detail why this would be the case?
> 
> It's used if the server expects some request from the client to follow, and the
> PUSH_PROMISE frame sent by the server must contain the headers from the
> expected request. With notifications there are no requests expected from the
> client.

Yes.   And as HTTP2 allows different streams, the headers+notifications can go onto different streams so that higher priority notifications can avoid head-of-line blocking issues.   There is no RESTCONF interactions/encapsulation which is needed for this interaction.

Eric

> A more detailed explanation is here (search for SSE):
> 
> https://www.infoq.com/articles/websocket-and-http2-coexist
> 
> Lada
> 
> >
> > /js
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> 
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email