Re: [Netconf] YangPush now

Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 14:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Igor.Bryskin@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 1FD0913112C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 chdbGbMwHaPi for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:34:26 -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 165C7131127 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:34:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EC1FA3BA038E6; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:34:21 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.39) by lhreml706-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:34:23 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.30]) by SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.100]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 07:34:16 -0700
From: Igor Bryskin <Igor.Bryskin@huawei.com>
To: "henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de" <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, "andy@yumaworks.com" <andy@yumaworks.com>, "rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org" <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] YangPush now
Thread-Index: AQHUGE0HoArrHju7pUuFZlPxwORbe6SKsHGAgAAIToCAAVUBgP//nHg8
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 14:34:16 +0000
Message-ID: <etPan.5b4766ff.69c7b282.440e@localhost>
References: <20180708100310.gn3xaol66f7c7lo5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20180708.180552.1582913595227099806.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180708175359.mdcjgvddb453e2fc@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20180708.202727.1096638437748786994.mbj@tail-f.com> <B0DEB8BF-A652-43E5-8F35-A9732F4FE04A@juniper.net> <6d12e0fb-7bcc-8533-f783-f4d5fb4b0ce2@ericsson.com> <683740ff-2bb1-c702-6cd8-ea2eb4bf733a@cisco.com> <CABCOCHRiZTE8GSHvQrbRTnBVjciRqPVco1aTXHmZqFTWef5+iQ@mail.gmail.com>, <2590ad5e-26cd-6955-fb3f-677a05035606@sit.fraunhofer.de>
In-Reply-To: <2590ad5e-26cd-6955-fb3f-677a05035606@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_etPan5b4766ff69c7b282440elocalhost_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BLcul_z66n3crKjMVscdDgqRzVw>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] YangPush now
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, 12 Jul 2018 14:34:30 -0000

I have to return home late Thursday. Can we do this any other day beginning with Monday?

Igor
From:Henk Birkholz
To:Andy Bierman,Robert Wilton,
Cc:Netconf,
Date:2018-07-12 09:37:14
Subject:Re: [Netconf] YangPush now

Hi all,

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) with at least 2 variants:

* using a call home procedure (or similar rendezvous/join/discovery
procedure with a given scope and purpose) creating a series of
notification (or a given variant, e.g. bundles) with a kind of
solicitation, for example, via the attempt to trigger a dynamic subscription

* using a procedure to enable conveyance of notifications (or a given
variant, e.g bundles) without solicitation (and maybe a way to signal
refusal to accept incoming telemetry in given scopes)

This request is based on the need for unboxed things (of any sizes) to
find a suitable home - even in unknown territory or challenged by
volatile receiver availability.

A third variant that is able to create telemetry (assuming a procedure
distributing state between potential receivers in order to enable
conveyance) with solicitation but without a call home procedure would be
convenient (e.g. wrt to subscription resilience or fail-over of
subscription state in cases where a home in a group of homes is rendered
unavailable). Alas, I am new to this domain and am not sure, if this
third usage scenario is in scope here.

Viele Grüße,

Henk


On 07/11/2018 07:10 PM, Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would support the following actions:
>    1) move configured notifications to another draft so dynamic
> subscriptions
>        can move forward.
>    2) make this draft NETCONF only and defer RESTCONF notifications
>        until there is sufficient demand and consensus on how to do it.
>    3) move all subscription monitoring to another draft or remove it.
>         (The verbose notifications already define for subscription state
> changes
>          are sufficient).
>
> I think this would leave the RPC operations and notification events, which
> is all YANG Push should need to move forward. IMO a "binary push" transport
> is more important than items 1 -3 above.
>
>
> Andy
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 9:40 AM, Robert Wilton
> <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
> <mailto:rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
>
>     I completely agree.
>
>
>     On 10/07/2018 13:53, Balazs Lengyel wrote:
>
>         Hello,
>         We would need Yang-Push yesterday. We really-really need a basic
>         solution (dynamic-subscription with Netconf transport) now. IMHO
>         we do have an agreement on this basic part of the function.
>
>         This has been dragging along for a long time and we see a chance
>         of other people choosing a completely different solution unless
>         we manage to agree on the standard soon. I got comments from the
>         ONAP community: YangPush could be used, it looks nice, but when
>         will it be ready?
>
>         I see the value of configured subscriptions, of multiple
>         transports, etc. but if they keep the basic solution from being
>         available I am screwed. I appreciate the good work of many
>         people on this topic, but I would propose that we consider
>         cutting out any feature from a "first release" of  YP unless we
>         manage to get it accepted by the end of August in WGLC.
>         regards Balazs
>
>         P.S. Big bang versus agile?
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Netconf mailing list
>     Netconf@ietf.org <mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
Netconf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf