Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscriptions?

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> IMO there needs to be at least 1 complete standard solution that servers must support.
> I would prefer that configured subscriptions be held back until a fully-baked standard
> solution is ready.

This option will be discussed in Montreal.  If the WG agrees, then the below can be
discussed later.


> I don't think this fits the intent of CallHome.

RFC 8071 is very clear (see C8 and S6), the NC or RC protocol *starts*.  Also, from
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/QS14f-6w-BzCD9280uuO06CZK6c, I
wrote:

 That said, I have to say that I'm not entirely sure if I understand if what is
  planned is legal.  For instance, in a normal NETCONF call-home situation, the
 NETCONF session begins with both sides sending <hello> messages and then
  the server waiting for the client to send RPCs, which might include a 5277
  <create-subscription>, after which the <notifications> begin to flow.  Is this
  the same here, or are you expecting the <notification> messages to start flowing
  immediately?


> IMO a new protocol is needed that is dedicated to the binary transport
> of notification subscription data.

Agreed, and I'd like that protocol to be:
  1) mandatory to implement, if the "configured" feature is enabled.
  2) run over UDP, so events can go out line cards directly.
  3) be optionally encrypted, as there are scenarios where it's safe to send unencrypted
      events to a receiver within a security perimeter, which can relay the events over an
      encrypted connection to a remote system, so as to offload the burden from the NE
      equipment to a cheaper general purpose computer.

FWIW, COAP is on top of UDP, and its use of DTLS is optional, so it seems like a good
match, though I don't know if it also needs a client-initiated RPC to start the flow of logs.
Out of curiosity, has anyone ever compared COAP to gRPC?


Kent // contributor