IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] YangPush now

Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> Thu, 12 July 2018 20:28 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.clemm@huawei.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 DFE7D130F74 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
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 rtFMYlfLdTM3 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 66F1E130F72 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:28:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7A2B043D8F8E6; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:28:42 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.40) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 21:28:44 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.30]) by SJCEML701-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.3.22]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 12 Jul 2018 13:28:41 -0700
From: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Robert Wilton <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] YangPush now
Thread-Index: AQHUGE0Hc6bodT3Jb0Ka8PpEGefQ7aSKsHGAgAAIToCAAVUBgIAAWLiA//+cpFA=
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:28:40 +0000
Message-ID: <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EB2F27E@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20180708100310.gn3xaol66f7c7lo5@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20180708.180552.1582913595227099806.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180708175359.mdcjgvddb453e2fc@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20180708.202727.1096638437748786994.mbj@tail-f.com> <B0DEB8BF-A652-43E5-8F35-A9732F4FE04A@juniper.net> <6d12e0fb-7bcc-8533-f783-f4d5fb4b0ce2@ericsson.com> <683740ff-2bb1-c702-6cd8-ea2eb4bf733a@cisco.com> <CABCOCHRiZTE8GSHvQrbRTnBVjciRqPVco1aTXHmZqFTWef5+iQ@mail.gmail.com> <2590ad5e-26cd-6955-fb3f-677a05035606@sit.fraunhofer.de> <82693DB7-91C7-4172-A3CE-FDA3A638E191@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <82693DB7-91C7-4172-A3CE-FDA3A638E191@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.217.55]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KEQ1ubPSig_4sfKRPP5PdpDzBUQ>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] YangPush now
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Thu, 12 Jul 2018 20:29:00 -0000

On 2): not sure I understand that particular hum; I don't see what would be gained by separating them.  YP builds on SN but it is ready.    If the WG decides to refactor SN to move configured subscriptions out, sure, YP needs to be updated to make sure this is reflected, but this should be straightforward.  If separating YP and SN would accelerate them (or at least one of them), sure, but I am not clear why this would be the case.  

To the question on putting YP out without SN: this is a well-intended suggestion even if it seems a bit ironic given SN was originally created by taking it out as a generalizable piece from YP that would be useful for notifications other than push updates per decision of the WG.  Changing YP now to become a self-contained piece would mean reverting on this; I am not convinced it is a good idea to do so this late in the game and would rather have us see this through as we had planned.    

--- Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2018 11:48 AM
> To: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>; Andy Bierman
> <andy@yumaworks.com>; Robert Wilton
> <rwilton=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] YangPush now
> 
> 
> > I would like to strongly +1 retaining the configured subscriptions
> > (not necessarily in the Push draft itself for the sake of expediting
> > WGLC or
> > modularity)
> 
> Ah, so here's another hum question: with or without yang push.
> 
> hums now are:
> 
>  1. dynamic subscriptions ~ configured subscriptions
>    a. dynamic first, then configured (published sequentially)
>    b. dynamic and configure together (published in parallel)
> 
>  2. subscribed-notifications ~ yang-push
>    a. SN first, then YP  (published sequentially)
>    b. SN and YP together (published in parallel)
> 
> Eric/Alex: please include a slide with this somewhere in your preso.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kent // chair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email