IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01

"Zhengguangying (Walker)" <zhengguangying@huawei.com> Thu, 24 August 2017 00:54 UTC

Return-Path: <zhengguangying@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 A33C2132197 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 17:54:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-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 ReATQtkS0Mqs for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 17:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74B28120727 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 17:54:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DNF25578; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:54:09 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML411-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.70) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 01:54:08 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.219]) by nkgeml411-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.70]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:54:00 +0800
From: "Zhengguangying (Walker)" <zhengguangying@huawei.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
Thread-Index: AQHTGsmq2KiStu0LpUC+dtqUvYwssaKRLG+AgAF6HSA=
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2017 00:53:59 +0000
Message-ID: <381D7D55085B1E4D8B581BD652E1E140C91ADABB@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <F94D3EAE-F8C1-4CB7-B0E8-CC9E4F795C71@juniper.net> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A2417AED@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A2417AED@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.134.169.155]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090202.599E23B1.0104, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.1.219, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 708641c87858eee99a79e8b16a15f773
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NmDb1GMgm7hVxkNprpUPeg3ttcs>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 24 Aug 2017 00:54:14 -0000

Hi

  I support this document to be adopted by the WG.
  The other call for adoption document draft-zheng-netconf-udp-pub-channel-00 will refer this work for the message header design.
  I would like to review and contribute if it is adopt by WG..

Here are some initial comments:
1.Now single record message header and bundled message header is not same, it makes implementation a little complex, whether it can make the message header and record header same no matter it is bundled or not.
Such as；
1)Single Notification:
[message header] 
[record header]
[notification content]

2)Bundled Notifications:
[message header] 
[Bundle header]
[notification records]
  [record header]
  [notification content]

2.why subscription-id define as " leaf-list ", I think for one subscriber same notification will be subscribed only by one subscription-id.


Cheers,
Walker

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent 
> Watsen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:06 AM
> To: netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: [Netconf] WG adoption poll
> draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> This is start of a two-week poll on making the following draft a 
> NETCONF working group document:
> 
>   draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01 [1]
> 
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
> If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document.  
> If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see 
> addressed once the document is a WG document.
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Kent (and Mahesh)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email