IETF Logo Mail Archive

[netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Fri, 20 December 2024 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <01000193e42c50fa-cab1d25d-9738-4f7e-8689-43393a9a12b9-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 00367C151087; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:07:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.01
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.01 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jZo8GWQqGb12; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:07:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a48-93.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-93.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.48.93]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E828DC2394A3; Fri, 20 Dec 2024 05:05:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=ug7nbtf4gccmlpwj322ax3p6ow6yfsug; d=amazonses.com; t=1734699930; h=Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:From:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:Message-Id:References:Cc:In-Reply-To:To:Feedback-ID; bh=dwan66t+O4mp/Xm9q5eZ+/XjQvBWAv+RtwbZhx/OUQc=; b=RDpPjJEeM1RAkAEBnak6l7eVRF2hmE96uE7A9wb/aHTkvd/4VVl6/fWKHq3aX0OQ C46qPU7C6UKxbHRE/T5z/cj0e3y9WyT3DQjxBIY6PWp7JrKNVO5ehfoBXXAhjno0nAc TXZyOT0Mz6ipJ+QhoyQUpMggyLEYh13phh7ruPlE=
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-7511B7B8-01DB-4458-99C6-29013D5F2BF7"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2024 13:05:29 +0000
Message-ID: <01000193e42c50fa-cab1d25d-9738-4f7e-8689-43393a9a12b9-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <d54f9c51-1367-4b68-a5a2-fc6d429787ad@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <d54f9c51-1367-4b68-a5a2-fc6d429787ad@huawei.com>
To: Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (22B91)
Feedback-ID: ::1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
X-SES-Outgoing: 2024.12.20-54.240.48.93
Message-ID-Hash: BYEAPYXCOKT4UVOUAZHBKZSFSZKD6MWY
X-Message-ID-Hash: BYEAPYXCOKT4UVOUAZHBKZSFSZKD6MWY
X-MailFrom: 01000193e42c50fa-cab1d25d-9738-4f7e-8689-43393a9a12b9-000000@amazonses.watsen.net
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-netconf.ietf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc6
Precedence: list
Subject: [netconf] Re: [Tsv-art] UDP default port
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <netconf.ietf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/R7pVVQ1XG9hLc9op0_DFgUCEd2Y>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netconf>
List-Help: <mailto:netconf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:netconf-owner@ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:netconf-join@ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:netconf-leave@ietf.org>

Hi Benoit,

This started with the TSVART review. 

I was trying to find to way (with QUIC) to address Joe’s comment while also (hopefully) still making it easy to implement on line cards.  

The “cherry on top” is that QUIC supports mixed reliability, which seems ideal for a logging protocol, don’t you think?

My worry is that the proposed solution will be okay for routers and switches, but not so much for firewalls and NAC devices, that also have high throughput thru line-cards. 

Kent / contributor 


On Dec 20, 2024, at 6:52 AM, Benoit Claise <benoit.claise=40huawei.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

 Kent,

I guess I fail to understand this willingness to come back to the use cases behind this draft, to try to find new solutions here (QUIC), and to postpone further the publication.
A 4 years old WG document, with 6 implementations (see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif#name-implementation-status" class="internal xref" rel="nofollow">Implementation Status). Isn't it time to ship it?

Regards, Benoit

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status