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

On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:32 AM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:

> Dear WG,
>
> This adoption call was unsuccessful.
>
> There is obviously a lot of interest, but the solution doesn’t seem
> adequate, given the comments made on the list.  Not to disparage the
> effort, but the problem is rather intractable!
>
> Andy mentioned that an Interim may be needed, which seems right (+1 if you
> agree), but I wonder if there isn’t more that can be done in preparation
> first.  Specifically, as this effort challenges fundamentals, it would help
> to clarify the motivation and expected outcomes.
>
>
+1 to a better functional specification

IMO there are no implementation problems caused by the RFC 5277 XSD for the
notification element.
YANG is incapable of validating this element, but it is a trivial
structure, easy to validate.

It is not clear to me that any new fields are needed in the notification
header.
The NETCONF WG discussed multiple timestamps pre-5277 and decided against
it.
Same for 'sequence-id'. IMO these are OK for YANG Push augments.

I supported this draft as a way to get 2 SID assignments.

IMO the NETCONF WG needs to make Binary YANG Push a top priority.
This needs to be protocol-independent as possible (not UDP-specific).
I think YANG Push can be simplified and improved. (But not in this WG)

One high-level question I have, is there anything wrong with the
> “notification” statement in RFC 7950?  That is, is this at all a YANG-next
> issue for the NETMOD WG, or is to purely NETCONF WG issue?
>
> Kent
>
>
Andy

>
> > On Apr 6, 2024, at 6:14 PM, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
> >
> > NETCONF WG,
> >
> > This message starts a two week poll on adopting the following document:
> >
> >       YANG model for NETCONF Event Notifications
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-04
> >
> > The poll ends April 20.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > No IPR is known for this document:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/oQVZ6Pf_novNfMB4RsnDxQibHpM/
> >
> > PS: this document received strong support before, being very focused,
> providing just a module enabling validation of YANG “notification” messages.
> >
> > Kent and Per (as co-chairs)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- netconf@ietf.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to netconf-leave@ietf.org
>