Re: [Netconf] YangPush now

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

Addressing your second point first, as you say, we're too far down the road to consider YP w/o SN.  I think Andy was just reflecting how things could've been different if we turned back time.

Regarding your first point, I agree that the delta may not be much, but YP is also a large document (56 pages) and, if only to help better focus the WG, the chairs will probably run the LCs on these two drafts sequentially anyway.  Just speaking for myself, I haven't reviewed YP seriously yet, as I've been waiting for the dust to settle on the SN layer first.  In theory, my review should go easy, since YP builds on top of SN (the harder to define layer) and also because YP has been improved by others already, but that's all part of the unknown behind hum #2.  Makes sense?

Kent


===== original message =====

On 2): not sure I understand that particular hum; I don't see what would be gained by separating them.  YP builds on SN but it is ready.    If the WG decides to refactor SN to move configured subscriptions out, sure, YP needs to be updated to make sure this is reflected, but this should be straightforward.  If separating YP and SN would accelerate them (or at least one of them), sure, but I am not clear why this would be the case.  

To the question on putting YP out without SN: this is a well-intended suggestion even if it seems a bit ironic given SN was originally created by taking it out as a generalizable piece from YP that would be useful for notifications other than push updates per decision of the WG.  Changing YP now to become a self-contained piece would mean reverting on this; I am not convinced it is a good idea to do so this late in the game and would rather have us see this through as we had planned.    

--- Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 11:48 AM
> To: Henk Birkholz <[e-mail]>; Andy Bierman
> <[e-mail]>; Robert Wilton
> <rwilton=[e-mail]>
> Cc: Netconf <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] YangPush now
> 
> 
> > I would like to strongly +1 retaining the configured subscriptions
> > (not necessarily in the Push draft itself for the sake of expediting
> > WGLC or
> > modularity)
> 
> Ah, so here's another hum question: with or without yang push.
> 
> hums now are:
> 
>  1. dynamic subscriptions ~ configured subscriptions
>    a. dynamic first, then configured (published sequentially)
>    b. dynamic and configure together (published in parallel)
> 
>  2. subscribed-notifications ~ yang-push
>    a. SN first, then YP  (published sequentially)
>    b. SN and YP together (published in parallel)
> 
> Eric/Alex: please include a slide with this somewhere in your preso.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent // chair
>