Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-21
"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Fri, 25 January 2019 15:41 UTC
Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE742130E70; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:41:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.643
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.643 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jg1PG_3YiTe9; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:41:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com [173.37.86.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 126C2130E6D; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 07:41:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4923; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1548430910; x=1549640510; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=jUJLhwLcpLUMC39Yt8rPIRq1LxR0Xe8plu7rbyYS9Rk=; b=WwuosF7HLLiUq2x0L88NdXzkYj9xlHzom64bGz+Bh1RI66K/oUnFZrhp /Vi7UEUYw1JGQYS+0UhpHbLxu1sl4X345aXoJXHvpJ/rQ6rQaREIk6z/k bpjhY28spw63MJXK7tCcmVuLJ1gGsXmVC0bfzZqCOp2wJlWC6pxn6ckrH g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0ADAACfLUtc/5tdJa1kGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgVopgWonCowRi3eCDZgHgXsLAQGEbAKDCiI0CQ0BAwEBAgEBAm0ohUoBAQEBAgE6PQIFCwIBCA4HAw0REDIlAgQOBQiCT4JFCKxGijGMQReBQD+BEYMShGuFVCICiUiCIJZQCQKLBYcbIJInmx4CERSBJx84gVZwFYMngicXE44KAUExig+BHwEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.56,521,1539648000"; d="scan'208";a="424726828"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by rcdn-iport-9.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 25 Jan 2019 15:41:49 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (xch-rtp-003.cisco.com [64.101.220.143]) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x0PFfmFr015743 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:41:48 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-003.cisco.com (64.101.220.143) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:41:48 -0500
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Fri, 25 Jan 2019 10:41:48 -0500
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "andy@yumaworks.com" <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>, "alexander.clemm@huawei.com" <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, "yang-doctors@ietf.org" <yang-doctors@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications.all@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-21
Thread-Index: AQHUrG6+nBjZ9hMl8U25QTRsXd0ZC6Ww36AggANDEICAARW3EIAAAXJggAU/bACAAWWKIIABCD+A///v5GCAAKn4AP//skVAgAGV2gD//60SYAANQ54AAApn7nD//7rBgIAATO5Q///xy4CAAB+zwIAAwVMA///xWjCAAIE3gIAAU4mQ
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:41:47 +0000
Message-ID: <9d4bbc12ddb448ca98fd8560a02565c5@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <83b12adbb7234a84a56ac3ec00bb0673@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20190125.093938.375156009332209799.mbj@tail-f.com> <adb990ccef2e4fa78d2ad7c12323617e@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20190125.162941.2222352349671950038.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20190125.162941.2222352349671950038.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.226]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.143, xch-rtp-003.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-4.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/JwxXXCqBR7G-ohffHwy_Dm8h8Lc>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-21
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: Fri, 25 Jan 2019 15:41:52 -0000
> From: Martin Bjorklund, January 25, 2019 10:30 AM > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, January 25, 2019 3:40 AM > > > > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, January 24, 2019 9:40 AM > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, January 24, 2019 8:17 AM > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thinking some more, what is supposed to happen if > > > > > > > > > > > the client on the same session sends first an > > > > > > > > > > > establish-subscription with dscp 42, and then > > > > > > > > > > > another > > > > > > > > > > > establish- > > > subscription with dscp 10? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This would be allowed. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On linux at least this is a sockopt, i.e., the option > > > > > > > > > applies to the socket, which means all packets on the > > > > > > > > > session. So how is this supposed to be implemented if > > > > > > > > > different messages on the session should have different > > > > > > > > > dscp values? > > > > > > > > > Or is the > > > > > > > > > idea that you send the msg, flush all data from ssh/tls > > > > > > > > > to tcp, then flush the tcp buffers (not that easy...)? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Even if there's just one establish-subscription with a > > > > > > > > > dscp value, since it applies to the session it means > > > > > > > > > that all normal rpcs on this session will get the same dscp value. > > > > > > > > > It is not clear that this is the intention? > > > > > > > > > > Did you miss these questions? > > > > > > > > With NETCONF, one DSCP will apply to single TCP session. So there > > > > is no > > > issue. > > > > > > The problem is if a client sends two establish-subscriptions with > > > different values for dscp on the same session. Or even if the > > > client sends one > > > establish- > > > subscription with som dscp value, then the dscp will be applied to > > > all packets from other rpcs as well. > > > > > > ... and even worse, with SSH channels you can have multiple NETCONF > > > session on the same TCP session, which means that the dscp value > > > applies to all packets in all NETCONF sessions sharing the same TCP > > > session. > > > > > > I don't know what the right thing to do is. Probably first agree > > > that this is in fact a problem, then maybe simply document this > > > somehow. > > > > I hadn't thought about multiple NETCONF SSH channels. I agree > > something to guide developers is needed here. The easiest fix is to > > recommend not supporting feature "dscp" with NETCONF. (It shouldn't > > be absolutely prohibited as DSCP related RFC's such as RFC7657 embed > > text like "a single DSCP should be used for all packets in a TCP > > connection".) > > > > Here is the text I suggest is put into > > draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications, Section 5: > > > > "The feature "dscp" SHOULD NOT be supported over NETCONF. This will > > avoid the potential for out-of-order packet delivery of the set of all > > traffic within the TCP session." > > I think this is a bit too limiting. For configured subscriptions it can be perfectly > fine, since the server can ensure that there's a single TCP session to the receiver > in this case. (I know we don't support configured subscriptions at the moment). > > Perhaps we can say in the SN document: > > If a server that supports the "dscp" feature cannot guarantee that > the only packets sent on an underlying transport session are from > the subscription, then it should reject the subscription with a > "dscp-unavailable" error. This will avoid the potential for > out-of-order packet delivery of the set of all traffic within the > TCP session. This works for me. I will put this in Section 2.3, directly after the sentence: If the publisher supports the "dscp" feature, then a subscription with a "dscp" leaf MUST result in a corresponding [RFC2474] DSCP marking being placed within the IP header of any resulting notification messages and subscription state change notifications. unless I hear any objections on this thread. Eric > I think such text belongs to the SN document, since it may apply to other > transports than just NETCONF. > > > /martin > > > > > With this text, a RESTCONF publisher can support the feature dscp. > > And if someone attempts to use dscp with a NETCONF subscription to the > > same publisher, the error "dscp-unavailable" can be sent. > > > > Eric > > > > > > ... > > > /martin > >
- [Netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-i… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Mehmet Ersue
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of dra… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Andy Bierman
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Per Hedeland
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Per Hedeland
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netconf] [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last cal… Eric Voit (evoit)