Re: [netconf] [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 25 June 2021 14:49 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 396ED3A1AE9; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 gxNb9oCVxY30; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4D133A1AE8; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 07:49:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id E681538B97; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:51:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 5jriCkkNL3WR; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:51:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1C1538B95; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:51:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28FF0553; Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:49:14 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>, Core <core@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHTCOvDYXc1LiKXspbHdyQzf0Ftv1V1nGdcg=PHD9YoXMA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <5ba27e43a63e427091f3093b35be09a0@huawei.com> <14286.1624562075@localhost> <CABCOCHTCOvDYXc1LiKXspbHdyQzf0Ftv1V1nGdcg=PHD9YoXMA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 10:49:14 -0400
Message-ID: <9896.1624632554@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/OnGN6uEwHP-120H0qYFnPj8P8B0>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [core] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription
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: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 14:49:23 -0000

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
    >> If bandwidth is at a premium, wouldn't you want to use
    >> draft-ietf-core-comi-11 (YANG in CBOR) rather than XML?  At which
    >> point, the obvious interaction with RFC7641 would need to be
    >> explained?

    > Commenting only on the use of CORECONF, not this draft...  IMO CORECONF
    > is for constrained devices, possibly on constrained networks.  But if
    > only the network is constrained, then perhaps only CBOR is really
    > needed.

CoAP/CBOR/etc. work well in less-constrained devices.
ESP32 now have several megabytes of flash, almost, but not quite 640K of RAM (520K).
Meanwhile router control plane CPUs are often way beyond this today.

    > I first raised these issues in NETCONF WG in 2013
    > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-bierman-netconf-efficiency-extensions-00
...
    > IMO the WG missed the point of this draft, which was to preserve the
    > massive and expensive investment in the NETCONF application layer
    > already deployed. Just optimize the network traffic and not rewrite any
    > feature code.

I don't think it's too late, but I don't really understand the NETCONF
investment right now.  While I'm sure that each major router vendor has a
management platform like JUNOS, I've not seen it cross-vendor for real.
I also know ISPs who try stuff like JUNOS, and get frustrated and go back to CLI.
(Often without the discipline to do it well)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide