Re: [netconf] Virtual hum for the question on "https-notif" draft

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

> From: Kent Watsen, April 29, 2020 7:50 PM
> 
> Eric,
>
>
> In light of the RFC 8639 text quoted above, we might question the validity of the hum
>…or, given the strong preference from the hum, we might question the validity of that 
> constraint in RFC 8639.  If questioning RFC > 8639, a better question to ask might be 
> why the configurable “encoding” leaf isn’t mandatory (also eliminating this issue and 
> seemingly cleaner)?
> 
> <eric> The WG feedback during RFC-8639 development was that encoding was often 
> implied from transport.  Therefore mandating exposure of this information in the model 
> was overly verbose, and could result in misconfiguration.  
>
> Okay, but now our first configurable transport can support multiple encodings and 70% 
> of the WG wants to “let the market decide” (i.e., no required, or default, encoding), it 
> seems almost like we’re contradicting ourselves here...  

<eric> Certainly WGs have changed their mind in the past.  If someone wants to re-open this discussion it could touch a lot of structures in the model, and would needs to be considered with other transports in mind.

I feel that "having the market decide" can still be accomplished with the current model by having the desired configurable-encoding identity as part of the datastore write.  To me this seems safer for a Northbound system to handle than for that Northbound system to have to track and adjust its write based the default for any particular vendor.

(FWIW, I voted for "JSON")  

> You mention the rational making the ”encoding” leaf optional, which seems reasonable 
> to me, but what about mandating a default, do you have a sense for how many people 
> weighed-in on that decision?  

<eric>  There were several fairly extensive discussion of the linking between transport and encoding.  This included presentations within a WG sessions.   It was seen as problematic to create XPATH which makes optional the population of an encoding leaf based on it being an configurable-encoding *and* also considering the value of as-yet-unknown transport identities specified within future transport drafts.

IMHO, the current structure balances these objectives reasonably.

Eric

> PS: separately, can you look into configuring your mail agent to indent quotes in responses?
>
> Kent // contributor