[netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> On Jun 14, 2024, at 5:06 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> 
> Dear Kent and Per,
> 
>> Not to disparage the effort, but the problem is rather intractable!
> 
> On behalf of the author, thanks a lot for validating our efforts. We have been working in the background on addressing the input from on and off list comments in draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-05 and are in the final review process before publishing on the netconf mailing list.
> 
> However I resonate but partly disagree with your assessment that the issue is intractable. With https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e_PsL-RK0f7jXKpeQSPdiHxgRno/ I like to establish on the netconf mailing list a consensus of the problem statement.

Yes, please, on the list.


> Here, I encourage you Kent a contributor

I contribute here almost too much already
…and so happy to let others take first-stab at it!  ;)


> , but especially the authors of RFC 8639 and RFC 8641 to review the assessment. Here I ask to be as precise and accurate as possible in your feedback by refering and quoting sections of the documents. That should mitigate the problem that it is rather intractable.
> 
> I agree that an interim meeting before IETF 120 would be beneficial. The related notification documents are ready for publication in 1 week time and I already started working on presentations. Originally intended for IETF 120. As Andy mentioned on the list, the extensibility and discoverability of notifications and notification capabilities (RFC 9196) is also key factor to be considered in the discussion.
> 
> If this interim meeting could be arranged before end of June and the discussion on the mailing list is working on a consensus of the a problem statement in the meanwhile, I believe the interim meeting discussion wherever the proposed updates addresses the problem statement or not would be very fruitful.

Let’s try to use the list more first.  As a WG, we don’t seem to use the list as much as we should…


>> One high-level question I have, is there anything wrong with the “notification” statement in RFC 7950?  
> 
> Yes there is. Please review and facilitate https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e_PsL-RK0f7jXKpeQSPdiHxgRno/

I just replied to that email.  I didn’t see anything in that discussion about the “notification” statement in RFC 7950 having an issue.  Using my vernacular, RFC 7950 seems to define the “payload” just fine.

Presumably, we agree that all the extra bits folks want to add into the “header” (e.g., sysName, sequenceNumber, etc.) is outside the scope of RFC 7950’s “notification” statement.



>> That is, is this at all a YANG-next issue for the NETMOD WG, or is to purely NETCONF WG issue?
> 
> The documents involved, RFC 5277, RFC 8639, RFC 8641 are netconf. RFC 7951 is netmod and RFC 9254 would be core. I suggest to loop in netmod and core at second stage after we have a consensus at netconf on the problem statement. Ideally for the interim meeting.

Yes, let’s focus on all the NETCONF parts first.  There’s more than enough for us here already.


> I will also working in the meanwhile on encouraging current implementers joining actively the netconf mailing list. I think of having more contributors who are worked or working on running code will help the discussion and mature the documents.

Agreed, this would be great.


> Does this sound like a reasonable action plan?
> Best wishes
> Thomas


Kent // contributor