Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 12 June 2018 21:32 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 AEB4A130ED0 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:32:24 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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
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 PrqLENwpATDP for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 622C5130EBC for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 14:32:21 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3108; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1528839141; x=1530048741; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=xrnIYA/LQ/9x5PFt0RbmKC23qFpNi+fW9ItpAq2NORw=; b=JG5l9l1VSuoz0pD132pYXeA2M9V0fS8zLRug+f92Fhus5q3TRENInDBZ HOiI4XB2zjjCMgoPVyGnyRCFCzdru61cFVbjr7K2HOR6Dwr4QBVfZ17v3 ovomvOZBT9W4ED9gUdYeKr1ofqXaaqBZtaJbi2BJ3XucwsnY924hfRJmS 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C3AAAQOyBb/5hdJa1cGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNDYn8oCoNuiASMaIF/lFuBeAsjhEkCF4IbITQYAQIBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECbRwMhSgBAQEDASMROgkCBQsCAQgOBwUCCR0CAgIwFRACBAENBQiDHIF?= =?us-ascii?q?3CA+rcIIciEmBYwWBC4c9gVQ/hBuDEQQYhEeCVQKMNoxQCQKFcYh+gUeLc4d?= =?us-ascii?q?qgh+HCAIREwGBJB04gVJwFTuCQ4V9ilJvjneBGgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,216,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="128767000"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 12 Jun 2018 21:32:20 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5CLWKiq015829 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 12 Jun 2018 21:32:20 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 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:32:19 -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 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 12 Jun 2018 17:32:19 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
Thread-Index: AQHT/nTB7wTodISdV0qlE/sux4czBKRU8kawgAFinID///zC4IAAXMiA//++zTCABv5KgP//v8BQ
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2018 21:32:19 +0000
Message-ID: <b44492127969401f8b72f2e3dd67d58e@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <381e3937e0054984812ea69de97c7659@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180608.110205.217184993423575402.mbj@tail-f.com> <9f987f8f571e4a499c589f4be02c0407@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180608.162233.994500338881044294.mbj@tail-f.com> <acfc0df721cb475d9b1c829d1f7f5dd7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <A58C7A8F-B926-4417-8080-685C0DB5E040@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <A58C7A8F-B926-4417-8080-685C0DB5E040@juniper.net>
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: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Aq71k5wLuKEPhntnkwiHMHbt3nA>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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, 12 Jun 2018 21:32:25 -0000

> Sure, but can YP import the "Event Record" term from SN?

Sure.  It imports other terms.  Alex, do you want to bring it in?
 
> Also, I think that the definition could be improved.  It currently reads:
> 
>    Event record: A set of information detailing an event.

Yes.  But the word 'event' here is itself defined as:

   Event: An occurrence of something that may be of interest.  Examples
   include a configuration change, a fault, a change in status, crossing
   a threshold, or an external input to the system.

Reviewers have liked separation of the event itself from the record about it.

Eric

> Kent // contributor
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Martin Bjorklund, June 8, 2018 10:23 AM
> >
> <snip>
> > But the name of the leaf doesn't change the semantics.  The
> > description says "number of event records", so your casual user still
> > have to understand that a YANG Push notif is an event record.
> >
> > BTW, it is not clear from the YANG push document that a YANG push
> > notif really is an event record.  It uses the term "update record",
> > and use the term "event record" in just one place.  This term should
> > be imported from Subscribed-notifications, and used.
> 
> Update record has additional constraints.  Probably the way to handle this is to
> tweak the definition of update record in YANG push to the following:
> 
> "Update record: An event record which contains a representation of one or
> more datastore node updates.  In addition, an update record may contain
> which type of  update led to the datastore node update (e.g., whether the
> datastore node was added, changed, deleted).  Also included in the  update
> record may be other metadata, such as a subscription identifier of the
> subscription as part of which the update record was generated."
> 
> Eric
> 
> > /martin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6S
> cbfh0UjBXeMK-
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=C
> hdyY-tKTlPquVOwbOXya3_PcGgirMepotW7UY8_V68&s=Bd-
> V3zeqTlVJmJa9OVqUUYf4I2RqZU5ce49Jd2xY37E&e=
>