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

[[e-mail]]

Hi Mahesh,

Thank you very much for the good summarization.

Hi Andy,

Thank you very much for the feedback. I am happy to hear that you will review the document and consider to implement.


  *   Hopefully the authors will add an example of a notification in each encoding soon.
Sure, Pierre François, one of the co-authors and professor at INSA university and his colleagues already started working on an open-source YANG push library for the receiver (data-collection) to support udp-notif and distributed-notif. We planned to integrate this library into the open-source project pmacct at IETF 109 hackathon to showcase a working receiver with a first vendor implementation. Further, we are in the evaluation on what environment to build an example open-source publisher which can be taken as reference for other implementations.

It would be interesting to understand how we could potentially collaborate. I think the IETF 109 hackathon would be a good place to work and validate each other implementation. As we already were doing with BMP (BGP Monitoring protocol) in previous IETF hackathons.
https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/108/slides/slides-108-grow-ietf-108-hackathon-bmp-00. What do you think?

Best Wishes
Thomas

From: netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 12:08 AM
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif



On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:47 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Hi Andy,


On Aug 10, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Andy Bierman <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to understand the NETCONF WG plan for UDP transport of notifications.

The WG was developing a UDP draft already I think, and it was dropped.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-05<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-05&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C6d61dd2dd3c3422f6c2d08d8409e8fc9%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330397053580529&sdata=6YtbXF3DIp%2BJDhoi9flTQjWN92c6qv%2FT6sXqVRjLwCc%3D&reserved=0>

In IETF 103, there was extensive discussion on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel, with questions raised about the scope of the draft. In IETF 105 and 106, our guidance (see meeting minutes) was to repurpose the draft for a UDP notification channel, which the WG would then ultimately adopt. This draft satisfies that request. To clarify this further, the datatracker marks the new draft as a replacement for the draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel.


I support adoption of this draft.
I am willing to work on the document, review it, and implement it.
Hopefully the authors will add an example of a notification in each encoding soon.

IMO there really should be 1 RFC that combines these documents:

     draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
     draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
     draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages

The single source vs. multi-source distinction does not really require separate documents.
General one-size-fits-all notification headers are too inefficient to use in
a high performance telemetry system.  Not sure where notification-messages will ever get used.
IMO these 3 documents could be a good protocol, if combined and focused correctly.


Mahesh & Kent (as co-chair)


Andy




Since the WG dropped this problem and work item already, why should it reverse that decision
and start over with a new solution?


Andy


On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen..net<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
NETCONF WG,

Per the previous email sent moments ago, the chairs would like to solicit input on the following draft:

   Title: UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
   Link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C6d61dd2dd3c3422f6c2d08d8409e8fc9%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330397053590475&sdata=m4ogTh90gPL4SVM2tGseQT9j6PY8ufPr5fPfNgvbK0I%3D&reserved=0>
   Abstract:

      This document describes an UDP-based notification mechanism to
      collect data from networking devices.  A shim header is proposed to
      facilitate the streaming of data directly from line cards to a
      collector.  The objective is to rely on a lightweight approach to
      allow for higher frequency and better transit performance compared to
      already established notification mechanisms.


In particular, please discuss adoption-suitability as it regards to the following questions:

    1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
    2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?


PS: this message is itself not an adoption poll, but rather an attempt to gauge interest/support for a potential future adoption poll.

NETCONF Chairs

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnetconf&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C6d61dd2dd3c3422f6c2d08d8409e8fc9%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330397053590475&sdata=%2BdVisZkWD%2B9yBiavHLvkYEIwFKwJeOlx7yIu%2BI4gFEU%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf<https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fnetconf&data=02%7C01%7CThomas.Graf%40swisscom.com%7C6d61dd2dd3c3422f6c2d08d8409e8fc9%7C364e5b87c1c7420d9beec35d19b557a1%7C1%7C0%7C637330397053600443&sdata=bd3zWWkteoRA01MGWVZWAJM2wyCQH3Gs3ye9HNJ5zlU%3D&reserved=0>