Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:47 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Andy,
>
> On Aug 10, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to understand the NETCONF WG plan for UDP transport of
> notifications.
>
> The WG was developing a UDP draft already I think, and it was dropped.
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-05
>
>
> In IETF 103, there was extensive discussion on
> draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel, with questions raised about the scope
> of the draft. In IETF 105 and 106, our guidance (see meeting minutes) was
> to repurpose the draft for a UDP notification channel, which the WG would
> then ultimately adopt. This draft satisfies that request. To clarify this
> further, the datatracker marks the new draft as a replacement for the
> draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel.
>
>
I support adoption of this draft.
I am willing to work on the document, review it, and implement it.
Hopefully the authors will add an example of a notification in each
encoding soon.

IMO there really should be 1 RFC that combines these documents:

     draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
     draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
     draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages

The single source vs. multi-source distinction does not really require
separate documents.
General one-size-fits-all notification headers are too inefficient to use in
a high performance telemetry system.  Not sure where notification-messages
will ever get used.
IMO these 3 documents could be a good protocol, if combined and focused
correctly.

Mahesh & Kent (as co-chair)
>

Andy

>
>
> Since the WG dropped this problem and work item already, why should it
> reverse that decision
> and start over with a new solution?
>
>
> Andy
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen..net
> <kent%2Bietf@watsen.net>> wrote:
>
>> NETCONF WG,
>>
>> Per the previous email sent moments ago, the chairs would like to solicit
>> input on the following draft:
>>
>>    Title: UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
>>    Link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
>>    Abstract:
>>
>>       This document describes an UDP-based notification mechanism to
>>       collect data from networking devices.  A shim header is proposed to
>>       facilitate the streaming of data directly from line cards to a
>>       collector.  The objective is to rely on a lightweight approach to
>>       allow for higher frequency and better transit performance compared
>> to
>>       already established notification mechanisms.
>>
>>
>> In particular, please discuss adoption-suitability as it regards to the
>> following questions:
>>
>>     1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
>>     2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?
>>
>>
>> PS: this message is itself not an adoption poll, but rather an attempt to
>> gauge interest/support for a potential future adoption poll.
>>
>> NETCONF Chairs
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netconf mailing list
>> netconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
>