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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 14:33 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 0A74F130EC0 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 2R8G5oZA_K9n for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FDA61294D7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3828; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1529505223; x=1530714823; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+Ox7QeQH2ZAcMfwyIVITApJfGbq244J8qg6+V+GJFgY=; b=gxjjHhlifSxEkcB0KE2ecVHb0LTv6+5m0g2JvhaddWSl1lGGOqZ/vZ+v MEoSOCgHhLBEG0w/67a8fPWyPKJkuUUZ4KSMfZvldcPhcI+aLVXeVjdjb aBMrEhXciDvm4m9jw/YzHkVo+5ArDRO2NIIxr3u4Y7FuhgkM1c6r9bEuc E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DoAQCCZCpb/51dJa1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMfKoFhMoNvlEOCApUAgXkLhGwCF4JgITUXAQIBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?CbSiFKAEBAQMBIxE+BQcLAgEIDgcFAiYCAgIwFRACBAEahRUIq26CHIN7AYR?= =?us-ascii?q?MbYELh0mBVD+EG4URgmqCVQKZJAkCjwaNSZE4AhETAYEkHwE1gVJwFYMjgzE?= =?us-ascii?q?BDIxaATWPPoEaAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,247,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="413000715"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jun 2018 14:33:42 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5KEXgfk024374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:42 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:33:41 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:33:41 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "alexander.clemm@huawei.com" <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
Thread-Index: AQHT/nTB7wTodISdV0qlE/sux4czBKRU8kawgAFinID///zC4IAAXMiA//++zTCABv5KgP//v8BQAAsePAAAAeTiAAAPiUWAAAIQEmAAKpK66wAP4zmQAA4QCIAAGLjSgAADVwtwAOZS1gAABZBdwAAD1lOAAA48heA=
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:41 +0000
Message-ID: <60da9e3dc06e49d3aa670ad92969ab7e@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <20180613160206.gkutjhxigdxpv2uz@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20180614.102216.2199378020340361225.mbj@tail-f.com> <f6f66d0c0a444f2bb0fc770082450037@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180614.203959.786029239464099510.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180615062751.obzdeco6oka3ekue@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <ac1a7a7480da46d4841fcd1bd0ea4ddc@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <A0ECF1FF-FF88-4BE3-A722-D681B9CF6F78@juniper.net> <03a8630197c04815a3aa6d85d667f678@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <956FD389-752F-4907-995F-1493F4EDC069@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <956FD389-752F-4907-995F-1493F4EDC069@juniper.net>
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: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/KioX6a6bzreOukRcYpG_wj_GZaU>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:33:45 -0000

Hi Kent,

> From: Kent Watsen, June 19, 2018 10:28 PM
> 
> > I had always seen as subscribed-notifications as a control plane improvement
> to RFC-5277.
> 
> Let hope so  ;)
> 
> 
> 
> > Explicitly excluding XSD, SYSLOG, vendor structures, etc. seems unnecessary.
> 
> XSD is another DML, maybe you meant XML?
> 
> SYSLOG is a protocol, I think you mean to say that folks might encapsulate
> syslog messages inside a <notification> element.  This is fine, I suggest defining
> a notification called something like "syslog-message" that is essentially a leaf of
> type "string".
> 
> Vendor structures are like Syslog, they can be even be binary if the leaf is of
> type "binary".
> 
> I'm not trying to exclude anything, what gets excluded?
>
> > 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.
> 
> But is it narrowing the scope any? (see above)

Whew, I was getting worried!

Effectively you are saying "let's require that a YANG structure be inserted to define anything which might be included in the payload".  (I am assuming that yang-data would also be an acceptable structure as well as something from a YANG notification statement.)

As I don't have existing non-YANG streams, I will defer to others on whether they want to require such insertion.  

> > > > 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.
> 
> I don't see the relation to opaque data here.

With common headers defined, elements which might be opaque within a <notification> might be exposable. (The publisher has the option of doing any needed mapping.) 

> The "notification-contents"
> description says "Encapsulates objects following YANG's notification-stmt
> grammar of RFC-7950 section 14."  That doesn't sound like it would be very
> opaque.

I agree that the current definition of "notification-contents" is not opaque.  Basically (like you) I also like having YANG definitions of event records as they are self-describing.  However I do expect that others might have different opinions, and that we will need to address whether the new bundling mechanisms need to support non-YANG data.  So see this definition is a placeholder for the same discussion you are asking about above.

Eric

> Kent
>