[netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-09 or draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-05: Observation domain id
Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com> Mon, 27 March 2023 05:50 UTC
Return-Path: <benoit.claise@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 D7A81C151B18 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:50:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DC_PNG_UNO_LARGO=0.001, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_24=1.618, HTML_IMAGE_RATIO_02=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e4EFPf6ZAyHZ for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:50:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8AA03C151B16 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Mar 2023 22:50:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.147.206]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4PlMN4477Qz6JWY0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 13:49:56 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.81.219.199] (10.81.219.199) by frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.94) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.2507.21; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 07:50:26 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------H5Hl71T8sQ2Jky0WOxzbXHT4"
Message-ID: <7d572149-2301-c5f4-a22b-927d5c43f2a2@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:50:20 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.6.1
Content-Language: en-GB
References: <a50293d3143c4310926a4cf74cedc225@swisscom.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
From: Benoit Claise <benoit.claise@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <a50293d3143c4310926a4cf74cedc225@swisscom.com>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <a50293d3143c4310926a4cf74cedc225@swisscom.com>
X-Originating-IP: [10.81.219.199]
X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems703-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.180) To frapeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.94)
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Kz_C_tivnUzm8tFa9pPQz_r_wOw>
Subject: [netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-09 or draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif-05: Observation domain id
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
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, 27 Mar 2023 05:50:38 -0000
Dear all, Coming back to this issue discussed today in the WG meeting. Thanks Alex for refreshing my mind during the session (I lost context here, sorry). You (rightly) said: We don't expect the IPFIX observation ID value to be the same as the UDP notification Observation-Domain-ID value because the UDP notification observation-domain ID is basically the Publisher ID (as opposed to a line card Id in IPFIX). However, we have to recognize that the observation domain concepts and definitions are similar between UDP-NOTIF and IPFIX. - Observable Domain & Observation Domain ID in draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif - Observation-Domain-ID in draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-09 Btw, note the hyphen difference. I believe that one of two drafts (I guess draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif, but not sure) should contain an "operational considerations" section expressing the difference between IPFIX and UDP notification observation ID ... basically Alex's answer to my question. I believe this would also address Rob Wilton's point. Regards, Benoit
- [netconf] draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-09 or draf… Benoit Claise