Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-wang-netconf-bulk-subscribed-notifications

"zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn" <zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn> Tue, 18 August 2020 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn>
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 B54E83A0EB2 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham 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 kWHjy3HQSYgD for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.228]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E9C3A0EA3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:37 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.48:13525.680091297
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-116.232.12.105?logid-acc97f38e48e41008db4a963eeb296c3 (unknown [172.18.0.48]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id CC1972800EC; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:24:21 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 31100443@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.48]) by App0024 with ESMTP id acc97f38e48e41008db4a963eeb296c3 for netconf@ietf.org; Wed Aug 19 00:24:23 2020
X-Transaction-ID: acc97f38e48e41008db4a963eeb296c3
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.48
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:24:22 +0800
From: "zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn" <zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABAAD8FAC16@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com>, <CABCOCHTumq+yZzasYb5Z-obC7d92UZ9UmOLexaS6=NdOyd0iEg@mail.gmail.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 004E92F6-E4C0-44A7-AEA2-108AA06FB2B8
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.16.188[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <20200819002422499442109@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart082256352567_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/MTH6Bxxf8_1QmiEp-SNK5IgngjY>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-wang-netconf-bulk-subscribed-notifications
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 16:24:39 -0000

Dear all,

Regarding the two questions, the comments are as follows:

1. Is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
I think it is important to define criteria to classify subscription and indicate to the server which specific subscription associated with the notification should be bundled together before bundling multiple notification in a single transport message. And I believe that the NETCONF WG is the appropriate WG for this work. RFC8639 and RFC8640 provide a good basis for this work.

2. Is the draft a suitable basis for the work?
I think this draft is mature enough and provide a solid basis for starting point.

Best regards,


Yuan ZHANG 张园 

China Telecom Research Institute 中国电信研究院
Tel: +86-18918588990
Email: zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn