Re: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline

Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com> Thu, 19 July 2018 03:20 UTC

Return-Path: <rohitrranade@huawei.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 891A3130EBD for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:20:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 rxdcUr0O5eZh for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:20:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC8BD130E9F for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 20:20:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.107]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B97737A489CD5; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 04:20:49 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.17.33) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 04:20:50 +0100
Received: from DGGEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.2.219]) by DGGEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com ([fe80::74d9:c659:fbec:21fa%31]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Thu, 19 Jul 2018 11:20:39 +0800
From: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline
Thread-Index: AQHUHqM849XY4DRnC0m5ZSr85VCYW6SUjU0AgAAyEoCAASHx4A==
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 03:20:38 +0000
Message-ID: <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6BBDEF0C@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20180718112108.hqgetzfebhqpdpsk@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <AD20F795-CBD3-4054-BD09-4F7DD45CFACB@juniper.net> <20180718150228.e2vcccd34sivmz3h@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHTtfTNCJiT-aU96sVrzm2-pHFGi5eATvKcTbdbQ-Whd1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHTtfTNCJiT-aU96sVrzm2-pHFGi5eATvKcTbdbQ-Whd1A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.18.150.121]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6BBDEF0Cdggeml510mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Aw0EwJHWTHail1pQLsiKac5wUP4>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline
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: Thu, 19 Jul 2018 03:20:57 -0000

From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: 18 July 2018 23:32
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>; netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline



<snip>

Ideally, the keep alive would just be handled at the session layer. I am
not sure where the NC spec allows

C: <rpc message-id="101"
C:      xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"/>
S: <rpc-reply message-id="101"
S:      xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"/>

otherwise one could define a noop RPC (I am not sure invoking a fake
edit-config is necessarily a good idea).


I prefer an <no-op> RPC for this purpose.
It would be better if the session counters were not affected,
but that would require protocol changes.
Causing error counters to increment for keep-alives is bad.
[Rohit R Ranade] +1

Andy