Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

> I had always seen as subscribed-notifications as a control plane improvement to RFC-5277.

Let hope so  ;)



> Explicitly excluding XSD, SYSLOG, vendor structures, etc. seems unnecessary.   

XSD is another DML, maybe you meant XML?  

SYSLOG is a protocol, I think you mean to say that folks might encapsulate
syslog messages inside a <notification> element.  This is fine, I suggest
defining a notification called something like "syslog-message" that is
essentially a leaf of type "string".

Vendor structures are like Syslog, they can be even be binary if the leaf
is of type "binary".

I'm not trying to exclude anything, what gets excluded?



> I can ping a few people who have legacy implementations which might
> be closer to this than I.   Narrowing the scope in this way should
> be broadly discussed.

But is it narrowing the scope any? (see above)



> > > It would be helpful to get some comments on draft-ietf-netconf-
> > > notification-messages.
> > > This draft address improvements to the opaque data blobs.
> > 
> > Perhaps tease us with a little more detail?  ;)
>
> Pretty much all the common headers in Section 3 and the message
> bundling in Section 4 are both improvements which are relevant
> to this thread. Tianran likely will have some new headers he
> wants added as part of the multi-line card work.

I don't see the relation to opaque data here. The "notification-contents"
description says "Encapsulates objects following YANG's notification-stmt
grammar of RFC-7950 section 14."  That doesn't sound like it would be
very opaque.


Kent