Re: [Netconf] YangPush now

Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de> Thu, 12 July 2018 13:36 UTC

Return-Path: <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
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 06F1C130F1C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 ieugvGyZHXaE for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.72.89]) (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 91CFE130F08 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 06:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (mail.sit.fraunhofer.de [141.12.84.171]) by mailext.sit.fraunhofer.de (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w6CDaQeD004826 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:36:27 +0200
Received: from [192.168.16.50] (134.102.43.163) by mail.sit.fraunhofer.de (141.12.84.171) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:36:21 +0200
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Robert Wilton <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
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>
From: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Message-ID: <2590ad5e-26cd-6955-fb3f-677a05035606@sit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 15:30:31 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHRiZTE8GSHvQrbRTnBVjciRqPVco1aTXHmZqFTWef5+iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Originating-IP: [134.102.43.163]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/BrqPSmdHBfe-UbbvU23dNXHkuxE>
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 13:36:36 -0000

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
>