[netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10
Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Fri, 21 February 2025 13:03 UTC
Return-Path: <bill.wu@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 1F711C1D61E5 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 05:03:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.204
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.204 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=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 Bf3G3DrFXEhV for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 05:03:15 -0800 (PST)
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 BE306C151522 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 05:03:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4YzqwG5b59z6H6pQ for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 20:59:42 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lhrpeml500010.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.174.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9238A140382 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:03:11 +0800 (CST)
Received: from kwepemf200005.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.231) by lhrpeml500010.china.huawei.com (7.191.174.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:03:10 +0000
Received: from kwepemf200004.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.230) by kwepemf200005.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.231) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:03:08 +0800
Received: from kwepemf200004.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.230]) by kwepemf200004.china.huawei.com ([7.202.181.230]) with mapi id 15.02.1544.011; Fri, 21 Feb 2025 21:03:08 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] WGLC for distributed-notif-10
Thread-Index: AduEXeCh1nFdDXQGQymSPTXIy0OxLg==
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2025 13:03:08 +0000
Message-ID: <708d0bbb9f304e629d433415867e9fca@huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.136.118.68]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_708d0bbb9f304e629d433415867e9fcahuaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID-Hash: ZLN4EFVC6UGCMD7HP7ER4JRRJNCJAD6M
X-Message-ID-Hash: ZLN4EFVC6UGCMD7HP7ER4JRRJNCJAD6M
X-MailFrom: bill.wu@huawei.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/NrWqOJI2eBvtf_1cMjrmKgdlz5o>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>
Hi, Thomas and all:
I take some time to review the v-(10), in my view, it is well written. Below are a few comments to this draft:
1. Section 2 Terminologies
The definition of most of terms give people confusion that they are not complete or lack subject. Here are a few suggested changes:
Old text:
“
Global Subscription: is the Subscription requested by the subscriber.
It may be decomposed into multiple Component Subscriptions.
Component Subscription: is the Subscription that defines a data
source which is managed and controlled by a single Publisher.
Global Capability: is the overall subscription capability that the
group of Publishers can expose to the Subscriber.
Component Capability: is the subscription capability that each
Publisher can expose to the Subscriber.
Master: is the Publisher that interacts with the Subscriber to deal
with the Global Subscription. It decomposes the Global Subscription
to multiple Component Subscriptions and interacts with the Agents.
Agent: is the Publisher that interacts with the Master to deal with
the Component Subscription and pushing the data to the Receiver.
Node: is the Publisher that obtains and pushes the data to the
Receiver.
”
New Text:
“
Global Subscription: The Subscription requested by the subscriber.
It may be decomposed into multiple Component Subscriptions.
Component Subscription: The Subscription that defines a data
source which is managed and controlled by a single Publisher.
Global Capability: The overall subscription capability that the
group of Publishers can expose to the Subscriber.
Component Capability: The subscription capability that each
Publisher can expose to the Subscriber.
Master: The Publisher that interacts with the Subscriber to deal
with the Global Subscription. It decomposes the Global Subscription
to multiple Component Subscriptions and interacts with the Agents.
Agent: The Publisher that interacts with the Master to deal with
the Component Subscription and pushing the data to the Receiver.
Node: The Publisher that obtains and pushes the data to the
Receiver.
”
2. Section 2 Terminology
In addition, I feel Terms like “Agent” and “Master” are too generic, suggest to
Replace them with “Publisher Agent” ,“Publisher Master”, ”Publisher Node”.
3. Section 3 said:
“
Lost and corrupt YANG notification messages need to be recognized at
the receiver to ensure data integrity even when multiple publisher
processes publishing from the same transport session.
”
What to if lost or corrupt YANG notification is recognized at the receiver?
Is there a need to allow receive to inform publishers about failure event
4. Section 4 said:
“
The Agents announce the status of their Component Subscriptions to
the Master. The status of the overall subscription is maintained
by the Master.
”
Later on section 7 said:
“
In addition to sending event records to Receivers, the Master MUST
also send subscription state change notifications [RFC8639] when
events related to subscription management have occurred. All the
subscription state change notifications MUST be delivered by the
Master.
”
Is there any connection between component subscription status in section 4 and subscription state change in section 7.
5. Section 7 said:
“ When the subscription decomposition result changed, the
"subscription-modified" notification MUST be sent to indicate the new
list of Publishers.
”
Should we make clear here a list of publishers are a list of Publisher Agents?NO?
6. Section 4 said:
“ * Contracts are created between the Master and each Agent on the
Component Capability, and the format for streaming data structure.
”
I am wondering whether communication between master and agent is stateless?
At least I can see mapping relationship between master and multiple agents need to be maintained at the master,
Hope these comments are helpful.
-Qin
发件人: Kent Watsen [mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net]
发送时间: 2025年2月8日 2:48
收件人: netconf@ietf.org
主题: [netconf] WGLC for distributed-notif-10
This email begins a two-week WGLC on:
Subscription to Distributed Notifications
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-distributed-notif/10/
Please take time to review this draft and post comments by February 21. Favorable comments are especially welcomed. Authors do not need to reply.
FWIW, none of the authors or contributors declared IPR:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/WFWTWNu8lww4xqTNsid3X6kA7zw/
Kent // co-chair
- [netconf] WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Leonardo.Rodoni
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Yannick.Buchs
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Nils.Warnke
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Paolo Lucente
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 DanVoyer
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Holger.Keller
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Qin Wu
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Camilo Cardona
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Thomas.Graf
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Kent Watsen
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Weiqiang Cheng
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Alex Huang Feng
- [netconf] Re: WGLC for distributed-notif-10 Thomas.Graf