IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG

Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com> Thu, 23 March 2017 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mjethanandani@gmail.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 3D09C128D19 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:56:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 acyL_aXi9gOW for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35D0D1293E9 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id o126so98105115pfb.3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:56:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9QMskpX+IWg7SXVaEfrFDcoLmZRTZbZt8Z0tzPqatKc=; b=BP4ZZSs9dyeLPGpi9Sx7gbBbyoKKuKKxVlgIE7NuGNDai9ISuIrQ7pKNU40o2Tev9D ZD0jO3JM5WITW25UxrPMcE6ls7uAekxzifEiGVjbsYSEtOaoTBxhNP2akJE/xwBEoMnT 6MAxClXBvMQm5N/ENXDfNb6GG8xh9MittJjdhHYJI8peHt1WSqvS4joh4CpRfpNj0GBE xRSZFHzQ+cu6OuTyEr7VInt4t1kuC19seBkEC1e5S6dqLMuCUd8vi/dd78WaleUQ5m0U NMcgSxWhsNdb3hlwEw8iVDKa8gcVYTrnZiJIHHQY8qgw3PYRZPUYy1895eyVJbX7wMS5 Nn3Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=9QMskpX+IWg7SXVaEfrFDcoLmZRTZbZt8Z0tzPqatKc=; b=eKRy2w+lb4TEyAFMUfLop5Er3b8dNByVLuuGMWJ4ff3Hzq/GYb5em6RJyeXd4nSBgQ em6BFOwU2mkoMMCrSyFNNOgfCid3sypfCQiHujqT7EltREft4CDQxVNhzXEiW+64b/xn hyDrUFb4itqfB6Rzw5dqB6LGXja7JNPyu/G27Fi0Y/YwhEdpGtFi3idnM4EsIugc3xuk 73VFGxOLYAl1NEPWadraMaeKnf7hEtyLOfYuUOmsRhofjWMXXHOhNsL/KJMJh7DbDMcT bN4LSzRsunn+qGD6+mtgTEhVmHVo6M6ZayX42f46ifwrQ7bHMVD1k0vHlAJqvv+Zk0jd IQXw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H0WWQzJUnvPLWZQ7Grjuz0IDnlsOuo3z494gH0gr1NujMOQtD8x5r0AXf6kc3TVZA==
X-Received: by 10.99.64.4 with SMTP id n4mr47491179pga.71.1490230568729; Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:56:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2602:306:cf77:df90:8934:e85:444c:1d55? ([2602:306:cf77:df90:8934:e85:444c:1d55]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r13sm6109922pfg.55.2017.03.22.17.56.06 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:56:07 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <804C3246-DE92-40CD-9A46-6CC662FE9727@nic.cz>
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 17:56:06 -0700
Cc: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6802426F-D189-40CD-B3AE-8B007C373528@gmail.com>
References: <005101d2975f$ae87ac20$0b970460$@ndzh.com> <017d01d29769$0df70b20$29e52160$@gmail.com> <010701d29771$a45f66e0$ed1e34a0$@ndzh.com> <026601d2977f$8d059600$a710c200$@gmail.com> <685B9088-7557-4C6E-9A8F-54C3208DB312@juniper.net> <7217bc23-0e1e-c250-929d-e18c3f0a800f@cisco.com> <07b601d2a197$9865d5b0$c9318110$@gmail.com> <20170321082015.GC35044@elstar.local> <0f17c698ae2645988692ba1eef007d79@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <37950223-F83B-40FD-8CA4-9A790D0A917E@nic.cz> <20170322084751.GA37843@elstar.local> <804C3246-DE92-40CD-9A46-6CC662FE9727@nic.cz>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/R8wIrfTLYWiupyWpze8DIWuXYl4>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Draft Charter Proposal for NETCONF WG
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 23 Mar 2017 00:56:11 -0000

Lada,

> On Mar 22, 2017, at 2:35 AM, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On 22 Mar 2017, at 09:47, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 08:54:39AM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>>> 
>>>> There are two different needs:
>>>> 
>>>> (1) RESTCONF over HTTP2:  This is what you are asking for, and I would love to see this as well.  As far as I know, nobody is currently defining this.
>>> 
>>> I wonder: is this needed? AFAIK, HTTP/2 methods are semantically equivalent to those of 1.1. We have a working implementation of RESTCONF over HTTP/2 (only) and I am not aware of any change in RESTCONF that was be needed because of HTTP version.
>>> 
>> 
>> I _assume_ there is not much needed but someone has to go and check
>> the details.
>> 
>>> Regarding HTTP/2 Server Push, its purpose is IMO different, so it cannot serve as a replacement to SSE.
>> 
>> Is that just a feeling or a claim or is there additional technical
>> detail why this would be the case?
> 
> It's used if the server expects some request from the client to follow, and the PUSH_PROMISE frame sent by the server must contain the headers from the expected request. With notifications there are no requests expected from the client.
> 
> A more detailed explanation is here (search for SSE):
> 
> https://www.infoq.com/articles/websocket-and-http2-coexist

To the question asked by Juergen. Is this reason enough for us to separate notifications for RESTCONF to be split from RESTCONF itself?

> 
> Lada
> 
>> 
>> /js
>> 
>> -- 
>> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
>> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
>> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> 
> --
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67



Mahesh Jethanandani
mjethanandani@gmail.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email