Re: [Netconf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities-01.txt

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <> Wed, 13 June 2018 20:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42D9130FF6 for <>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:11:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SlDd3j58S6IF for <>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 28BCB130FC2 for <>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:11:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=22894; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1528920705; x=1530130305; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=5lSzJLMjewYSvQiYACyXiQV5DnFxfDmMhnIu5wdUdX8=; b=TJ9Z9qCj7ZTLTZ9Uis/vT7t+7va29xWZcO0trYGKMkD1dUIstFZSU8HQ BwvE7l3EB8kknk87EP/pFvJgspcmFSIR+iNXYTJjyqkwrd0MPp+OZ+ygk Xpp9in96CMnr/9HzpncHJ+HxT5zv7LdIBdaUFu+c20OkiMPdXrMCzOSei s=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DHAAAveSFb/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJTdWJ/KAqDb4gEjGmBf5RpFIFkCyWERwIXgiAhNBgBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQJtHAyFKAEBAQEDIwpKEgIBCBEDAQEBDhYEAwICAjAUCQgCBAESCIM?= =?us-ascii?q?cgRtkD6tgghwfiCqBaIhLgVQ/hBuDEQEBAgEBFoETARIBCS0JFoJLglUCh1a?= =?us-ascii?q?EYoUBh1EJAoVyiH+BR0GDPYZkgROKCocMAhETAYEkHThhcXAVGoJkCYJAiEi?= =?us-ascii?q?FPm8BjG2BH4EaAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,220,1526342400"; d="scan'208,217";a="129253551"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2018 20:11:44 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5DKBhl7030038 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:11:44 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:11:43 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:11:43 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>
To: Balazs Lengyel <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities-01.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUAyGoR+GTwj7sHUGLDGiUb+qrvaRelwag
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:11:43 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1564f0acc0bd44b29267aa5f759145f9XCHRTP013ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 20:11:57 -0000

Hi Balazs,

This is good stuff.   I certainly would vote for adoption.

Some other thoughts:

Section 2
//which ones they are not/which ones are not/

Not sure what “purely model driven” means.   Is this getting to the point that sometimes for a single schema, some instance data might be subscribable, and some might not?

For implementation time information, it might be good to describe the interaction of this information with run-time on-change support markings.  E.g., is it possible for implementation time to be “Yes” and run-time to be “No”?  Should we care about this?

Section 3.1
Instead of boolean for notification-sent-for-config-default and notification-sent-for-state-default, should there be a boolean for each datastore?


From: Netconf <> On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2018 10:19 AM
Subject: [Netconf] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities-01.txt


I submitted a new version of the draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities updated with comments from the last IETF and others. I would like to get this adopted as a workgroup item. Please review it and if you like it, please indicate that you support it as a workgroup item.

   o  Augment only the new yanglib branch
   o  Correct the conditions for notifying about state data
   o  Corrections, clarifications
regards Balazs

-------- Forwarded Message --------

New Version Notification for draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities-01.txt


Wed, 13 Jun 2018 01:57:58 -0700



Alexander Clemm <><>, Balazs Lengyel <><>

A new version of I-D, draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities-01.txt

has been successfully submitted by Balazs Lengyel and posted to the

IETF repository.

Name:         draft-lengyel-netconf-notification-capabilities

Revision:     01

Title:        YangPush Notification Capabilities

Document date: 2018-06-13

Group:        Individual Submission

Pages:        10







   This document proposes a YANG module that allows a YANG server to

   specify for which data nodes it will send "YANG Datastore

   Subscription" on-change notifications.  It also proposes to use YANG

   Instance Data to document this information in implementation time.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission

until the htmlized version and diff are available at

The IETF Secretariat


Balazs Lengyel                       Ericsson Hungary Ltd.

Senior Specialist

Mobile: +36-70-330-7909              email:<>