Re: [Netconf] YangPush now

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Maybe this WG needs to figure out how to deliver core functionality and then
add to it over time.

For example, none of the notification drafts are critical or even important
for
getting YANG Push out the door.  We just needed (for core functionality)
to start notification delivery on a session, and RFC 5277 already does that.
All the new features are refinements and add-ons.

YANG Push could have been designed so it does not depend so heavily
on the subscription drafts. Now other non-standard solutions are getting
deployed instead of YANG Push.  There is no real business case to
replace all the proprietary work, especially if YANG Push drags on into
2019.


Andy


On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM, Balazs Lengyel <[e-mail]
> 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?
>
> --
> Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.
> Senior Specialist
> Mobile: [phone]              email: [e-mail]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>