[Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Thu, 11 October 2018 01:46 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 B0AB2130DF9 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:46:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 xUtyKkFY4xpK for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11D0D130DF6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2018 18:46:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B32E4D8BBB543 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:46:08 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.74) by lhreml709-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.399.0; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 02:45:24 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.200]) by NKGEML413-HUB.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.74]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:45:12 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13
Thread-Index: AQHUXC8cbkWCNEfz8kWboGz592BIZKUXtPCAgAB9oICAARuu4A==
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:45:12 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B064C67@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.33.244]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/QOYZMyl85Z7wPOLCG3MEO5J0XAI>
Subject: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 01:46:14 -0000

Hi:
I have read the latest version of netconf event notification and believe it is ready for publication, here is a few comments:
1. Section 5
The first sentence in paragraph 1 discuss how to encode notification messages over NETCONF protocol, 
but it is not clear how to encode notification messages transported over RESTCONF protocol? additional text to clarify?

For second paragraph, I think we should emphasize all notifications and RPC are carried in the same session, how about the following proprosed text:
"
For dynamic subscriptions, all notification messages MUST be sent in a same
NETCONF transport session used by the "establish-subscription" RPC.
"
2. Section 7, paragraph 2 and paragraph 2, the 1st bullet:
Why JSON encoding is underlined? Why is limited to XML encoding?

3.Section 7 paragraph 2, the 1st bullet:
      "In case of error responses to an "establish-subscription" or
      "modify-subscription" request there is the option of including an
      "error-info" node."

Where "error-info" node is included? <rpc-error> element?

"  The yang-data included within "error-info" SHOULD NOT include the
      optional leaf "error-reason", as such a leaf would be redundant
      with information that is already placed within the
      "error-app-tag".
"


where yang-data included in "error-info" defined? I only see something similar defined in RFC8040 for error-info.

-Qin