Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote:
> This makes sense to me. I would like to see messages like syslog can
> alse be streamed by this notificatuons.

What exactly do you mean?  If you mean syslog messages wrapped in a
notification like this:

  notification syslog-message {
    leaf msg {
      type string;
    }
  }

then it is trivially supported by this spec.

/martin

> 
> Tianran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> Sent from WeLink
> 
> 发件人： Andy Bierman
> 收件人： Eric Voit
> (evoit)<evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> 抄送：
> alex<alex@clemm.org<mailto:alex@clemm.org>>;netconf<netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>>
> 主题： Re: [Netconf] comments on
> draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
> 时间： 2018-06-20 07:42:09
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Eric Voit (evoit)
> <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> wrote:
> > From: Kent Watsen, June 19, 2018 5:58 PM
> >
> > > > > > An event record is not necessarily a YANG notification, as the
> > > > > > event record's payload might not be driven by the result of a
> > > > > > YANG statement.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't get this.  Can you give an example of when an event record
> > > > > is not defined as a YANG "notification"?
> > > >
> > > > Why do we care about non-YANG-defined notification messages? How are
> > > > systems expected to interoperate on such opaque data blobs?
> > >
> > > Opaque data blobs is what RFC-5277 can carry.  The WG asked to update
> > > RFC-5277 using the improved control plane of YANG-Push.  This is what
> > > makes up the documents in LC.
> > >
> > > <snip/>
> > >
> > > The drafts in LC adds RPC / signaling mechanisms.  The opaque data
> > > blobs are
> > not in scope.
> >
> > RFC 5277 may have allowed opaque data blocks, but I think that we
> > should try
> > to bury that support now.  Can this document say that all
> > notifications MUST
> > be defined by a YANG-defined "notification" statement?  Could this
> > break in
> > compatibility be advertised somehow?
> 
> 
> MUST be defined in YANG is a bit strong.
> I would say SHOULD be defined in YANG, for the "NETCONF" stream.
> Other streams do not have to use YANG notification statements.
> 
> 
> Andy
> 
> I had always seen as subscribed-notifications as a control plane
> improvement to RFC-5277.  Explicitly excluding XSD, SYSLOG, vendor
> structures, etc. seems unnecessary.
> 
> I can ping a few people who have legacy implementations which might be
> closer to this than I.  Narrowing the scope in this way should be
> broadly discussed.
> 
> > > It would be helpful to get some comments on
> > > draft-ietf-netconf-notification-
> > messages.
> > > This draft address improvements to the opaque data blobs.
> >
> > Perhaps tease us with a little more detail?  ;)
> 
> Pretty much all the common headers in Section 3 and the message
> bundling in Section 4 are both improvements which are relevant to this
> thread. Tianran likely will have some new headers he wants added as
> part of the multi-line card work.
> 
> Eric
> 
> > Kent
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> 