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

On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <
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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>