IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Subscription Use Cases

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Fri, 09 December 2016 08:26 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 0D932129CAF for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 00:26:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.797
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.797 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.896, 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 0Q4aBIzMXJVR for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 00:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67E89129CAE for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 00:26:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-13-76.a165.priv.bahnhof.se [155.4.13.76]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3C7DE1AE02BC; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:26:52 +0100 (CET)
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 09:26:51 +0100
Message-Id: <20161209.092651.1622778603139515958.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: evoit@cisco.com
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <a2b682ef436c4b67881c26c04ad3d0b5@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <e9128f79b8bc4923815e40510678c026@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20161208.100745.1423954834248283961.mbj@tail-f.com> <a2b682ef436c4b67881c26c04ad3d0b5@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/EyP2pwRDsKJmCnqn0vcopiZoK7c>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Subscription Use Cases
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 08:26:59 -0000

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> > From: Martin Bjorklund, December 8, 2016 4:08 AM
> > 
> > I think your requirements below are more like driving forces for YANG
> > push,
> > right?  Is there any of these that affects the solution in RFC 5277?
> 
> The majority of these cases need yang-push.  But yang push is only
> possible when the information is yang modeled.

Sure, but that's a completely different thing.

This discussion is about what needs to be done with RFC 5277.  I'll
re-iterate what Andy wrote once more:

  What are the must-have, should-have, and nice-to-have features that are
  missing from RFC 5277?


/martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email