[netconf] Capability-fetching mechanisms

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Mon, 19 April 2021 21:39 UTC

Return-Path: <01000178ec1343cb-74c9995e-8043-4e49-aa81-9da0fb07045b-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CD5D3A4557 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:39:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QcX7863byJTs for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a48-93.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-93.smtp-out.amazonses.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B552F3A4555 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Apr 2021 14:39:50 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1618868389; h=From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Feedback-ID; bh=li0IllkuxUKVdvWyd0WNT/XXSOmoWn+f48quBFxAkVs=; b=MwNVP9DUEjj+qU2oALArIa9PaWcX5kaQTxmHaDmUqMjwYlFNB9UBwxtvJI9ZHScD QHX4bQSWrbtycGv2XV+JL8HtOvbxI5QDjn21MgsGTcIoXBGWDUjg6zMdjjUZdLQ9flv 8U6di4MUDZYrYvzEeO10YY8LjIQ9Zf6Pzbi7oUME=
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D9615FD7-14A6-4515-8599-9C0EBA4C7EF9"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.\))
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 21:39:48 +0000
References: <CD217B11-D85C-45EF-AB9A-344EA948B1EE@watsen.net>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CD217B11-D85C-45EF-AB9A-344EA948B1EE@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <01000178ec1343cb-74c9995e-8043-4e49-aa81-9da0fb07045b-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.04.19-
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JmjttafVmRDaFzeLLNlYgrqfZWw>
Subject: [netconf] Capability-fetching mechanisms
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf/>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf>, <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2021 21:39:55 -0000

Dear WG,

One of the outcomes from “https-notif” presentation during the NETCONF 110 session was to what extent all the notif (e.g., https, udp, etc.) drafts should define their own capability-fetching mechanism, or use the mechanism defined by the "data-export-capabilities” draft.

As authors, Mahesh and I discussed some of the PROs and CONs of the approaches as follows:

PROs (for having a shared-mechanism):
Enables a common mechanism spanning multiple notif transports to exist 

CONs (against having a shared mechanism):

Entails each receiver also needing to be a NETCONF and/or RESTCONF server
Whereas a notif-specific solution can be optimized on a per-protocol basis.
FWIW, if RC, the receiver COULD minimally support *just* the single GET request (i.e., not a complete RC server)
Still, networking/firewall would have to support the outbound NC/RC flow, in addition to the base notification flow

Potentially extends the number of capabilities to be more than minimally necessary
e.g., the current "data-export-capabilities” modules define dozens of capabilities supporting RFC 8639 and RFC 8641 that are not needed for https-notif, when RFC 8639 is not in use.
HTTPS-Notif seems to need only three capabilities:
What encodings are supported (json, xml, binary)
If the RFC 8639 state machine is supported.
If bundled messages is supported.
Presumably, UDP-Notif would similarly have a small set of capacities.
In fact, it may be less, as UDP may be unable to support RFC 8639


Kent and Mahesh  // as authors