Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,
Thanks for your comments.
Please see in line.

Tianran
From: netconf [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Rob Wilton (rwilton)
Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 9:43 PM
To: Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif

Hi,

[Also as a contributor]

My comments are broadly similar to Kent’s.

I believe that a UDP transport for dataplane telemetry where getting accurate fresh data quickly is more important than getting every update.  This is particularly true if a subsequent notification will cover any lost values anyway (e.g. periodic statistics).

[ztr] Yes. So we described this in section 5. Do you want to propose more text?

I suspect that having a mechanism to allow for the telemetry data being encrypted is probably also important.  If the WG were to adopt a draft without this, then as Benoit mentioned, I would have to test the water with the IESG to determine whether that would be acceptable.

[ztr] We will work on a draft to describe about the encryption.

I also note that the draft allows for a GPB encoding of the telemetry data, but I’m not aware of any formal standard encoding of YANG data in GPB, and there is a choice between whether the GPB encoding is generic for all YANG data, or specific GPB encodings are useful for the specific data that is being encoded.

[ztr] Just to clarify, this draft only consider a code point to indicate the GPB encoding. With this indication, the receiver knows how to decode the message. YANG to GPB is out of the scope.
What’s your suggestion? Do you suggest us not to include GPB as a encoding?

Regards,
Rob


From: netconf <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: 07 August 2020 21:16
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif

[as a contributor]


   1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?

I believe that it is important to enable publishers to send notifications using a UDP-based transport.   This belief is based on my experience from when at Juniper dealing with very high-end firewalls with enormous log output.

I believe that the NETCONF WG is the appropriate WG for this work, having defined RFC 8639 (SN), RFC 8640 (NN), and RFC 8650 (RN).


   2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

I have read the current version of the draft and find it to be a reasonable start.

Presuming the “receiver-instances” augmentation defined in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-04#section-3 takes off, the module defined in this draft should be updated to augment into it instead.

I appreciate Section 5 (Applicability) noting that the UDP-transport is primarily for the data plane (not the control plane), as it doesn’t matter so much if data plane notifications are lost.  This addresses (I think) the issue that Rob Shakir raised before: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/minutes-103-netconf (search for “Rob S”).  That said, it is unclear to me how a receiver could configure this while, e.g., configuring control plane notifications to be sent via a TCP-based transport such as “https-notif”.


3) regarding Juergen’s questions:

  a) I am willing to substantially review the drafts.
  b) I am willing to contribute to the discussion of any issue.
  c) I do NOT plan to implement the technology defined.



Kent