Re: [netconf] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: (with COMMENT)

"Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com> Wed, 22 May 2019 21:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rrahman@cisco.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 0237B1200A4; Wed, 22 May 2019 14:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.5
X-Spam-Level:
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com header.b=FtIKBhsR; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com header.b=C5m7V6Tx
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 Ui2trSuq7_dT; Wed, 22 May 2019 14:40:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-3.cisco.com (alln-iport-3.cisco.com [173.37.142.90]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BDD111200A3; Wed, 22 May 2019 14:40:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6434; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1558561258; x=1559770858; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=LoAwxQXKZkNAx9SNy6JddOWs8f9tl11tb/8aMG2YMI4=; b=FtIKBhsR1feBUO0GWwVoMVhJBZQPa1h6niFJu9N+s/KMV/dXfb2zgzMI z29HUI+1yztN8Jt+Hgm2gBzVua8oy98x3iOLtnawP8EG2MFHv2ea78qDg Q2IKoMuBhpp/BCCCwD7rc9+rZNH23nLz5oTceBl31T/eY8XbwaoahCJDw c=;
IronPort-PHdr: =?us-ascii?q?9a23=3Afhf4nRfP4IE0tWktfftgYfHKlGMj4e+mNxMJ6p?= =?us-ascii?q?chl7NFe7ii+JKnJkHE+PFxlwGRD57D5adCjOzb++D7VGoM7IzJkUhKcYcEFn?= =?us-ascii?q?pnwd4TgxRmBceEDUPhK/u/dTYzHMFLUndu/mqwNg5eH8OtL1A=3D?=
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0BIAAC1weVc/4UNJK1lHAEBAQQBAQc?= =?us-ascii?q?EAQGBUQcBAQsBgT0pJwNpVSAECygKhAmDRwOEUooigleXKYEuFIEQA1QJAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BDAEBIwoCAQGEQAIXghojNAkOAQMBAQQBAQIBBG0cDIVKAQEBAQIBEhERDAE?= =?us-ascii?q?BNwENAgIBCBIGAgIJGgMCAgIZFxQBAg4CBAENBSKDAAGBagMODwEOnHUCgTW?= =?us-ascii?q?IX3GBL4J5AQEFgUZBgwUYgg8DBgWBBygBi1AXgUA/gREnH4JMPoJhAgECAYE?= =?us-ascii?q?hCQESAR8XIQKCUDKCJos8gkOaNgkCgg2GMIh5g10bgh6GXo02jF2Gd45eAgQ?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAUCDgEBBYFPOCk9WBEIcBVlAYJBgg83bQEHgkOFFIU/cgGBKIpngSIBgSA?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,500,1549929600"; d="scan'208";a="281137330"
Received: from alln-core-11.cisco.com ([173.36.13.133]) by alln-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA; 22 May 2019 21:40:57 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (xch-rcd-010.cisco.com [173.37.102.20]) by alln-core-11.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4MLeueR014503 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 22 May 2019 21:40:56 GMT
Received: from xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) by XCH-RCD-010.cisco.com (173.37.102.20) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:40:55 -0500
Received: from xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) by xhs-aln-001.cisco.com (173.37.135.118) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Wed, 22 May 2019 16:40:54 -0500
Received: from NAM03-DM3-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (64.101.32.56) by xhs-rtp-001.cisco.com (64.101.210.228) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 22 May 2019 17:40:54 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cisco.onmicrosoft.com; s=selector2-cisco-onmicrosoft-com; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=LoAwxQXKZkNAx9SNy6JddOWs8f9tl11tb/8aMG2YMI4=; b=C5m7V6Txy55p6b24sDVeSArVRVREqdZnfewZEGvAuhffyfpBmDchzAFjb6uQ+RRZKtVAKW3XlmyD5PqNYTyqJI1t0uLBmN/Kskj0K44LbBgiBAWMyChqhflLHOfolQfzd1edYuoq67C1Tv7SM5NIjfO2VHrRe39DbrRybn0tVzY=
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.174.104.151) by DM5PR1101MB2331.namprd11.prod.outlook.com (10.173.171.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.20.1900.16; Wed, 22 May 2019 21:40:52 +0000
Received: from DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce2:350d:6bed:7dde]) by DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com ([fe80::6ce2:350d:6bed:7dde%2]) with mapi id 15.20.1922.017; Wed, 22 May 2019 21:40:52 +0000
From: "Reshad Rahman (rrahman)" <rrahman@cisco.com>
To: Magnus Westerlund <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
CC: "draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif@ietf.org>, Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>, "netconf-chairs@ietf.org" <netconf-chairs@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: (with COMMENT)
Thread-Index: AQHVC90j5N+ogNsXt0aGO/2zhavC3qZ3c0SA
Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 21:40:52 +0000
Message-ID: <516A6855-BC04-4E17-8F98-1255F624C44C@cisco.com>
References: <155800723160.19565.3853721470955609906.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <6CAAE1F0-336D-4E43-9544-7D83FC456409@cisco.com> <HE1PR0701MB2522E4D931BB7283935C9D6595000@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <HE1PR0701MB2522E4D931BB7283935C9D6595000@HE1PR0701MB2522.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.10.6.190114
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=rrahman@cisco.com;
x-originating-ip: [161.44.212.40]
x-ms-publictraffictype: Email
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 5246c55d-4621-429c-6d89-08d6defe29f9
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(2390118)(7020095)(4652040)(8989299)(4534185)(4627221)(201703031133081)(201702281549075)(8990200)(5600141)(711020)(4605104)(2017052603328)(7193020); SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2331;
x-ms-traffictypediagnostic: DM5PR1101MB2331:
x-ms-exchange-purlcount: 2
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <DM5PR1101MB23312D082090297BF441C9D4AB000@DM5PR1101MB2331.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
x-ms-oob-tlc-oobclassifiers: OLM:8882;
x-forefront-prvs: 0045236D47
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10009020)(136003)(39860400002)(396003)(376002)(346002)(366004)(199004)(189003)(66066001)(86362001)(229853002)(68736007)(476003)(256004)(446003)(36756003)(7736002)(6436002)(6506007)(53546011)(6306002)(305945005)(71200400001)(71190400001)(83716004)(5660300002)(11346002)(6486002)(2616005)(6246003)(102836004)(478600001)(486006)(6512007)(966005)(33656002)(186003)(76116006)(91956017)(76176011)(81166006)(53936002)(58126008)(6116002)(81156014)(110136005)(66476007)(73956011)(66556008)(66946007)(64756008)(8936002)(66446008)(316002)(54906003)(3846002)(8676002)(4326008)(99286004)(2906002)(82746002)(26005)(25786009)(14454004); DIR:OUT; SFP:1101; SCL:1; SRVR:DM5PR1101MB2331; H:DM5PR1101MB2105.namprd11.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en; PTR:InfoNoRecords; A:1; MX:1;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: cisco.com does not designate permitted sender hosts)
x-ms-exchange-senderadcheck: 1
x-microsoft-antispam-message-info: J0FqHds2w0s5lU087V0rrtXBgyuQPjcBdKHDazU5XMcZVwOhYEIWlFV1J/SmhSH/13m87OwhA9Yy6GaZyY2gxk5KKHWVcxOZXs8hi86V6o4Xa+6cPvQeruX8NUwr5MnxkrLa2/+QZNqvWFmv6hkmGFfz+ngOwhwCshPICy2kIpLTUDfRUc8TiOC4li70ZGgWduUL4IWgbCsgd0QaSmVPhoCSyZ7QRDW2AyG1KX4lfqpVVfiGEb2azeG+X0gPsfvcrZ3mvhoqzAkdfd7vtk/vSeU4sYTl/+EHRENqEpTu/qIa/pkiLbGDW2LjBxzb/vnrW0Bt5hW//c7/aNsPgs/SDiFEwd2hSubhELylq4R5CsLIMHUees2Q9PV0yG0nIoAuQ9il2eiDLdIB5nYxoX9AgFh3ZUc0uLkvshYo/LmNFWU=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <0FFC6374520D714FB60A6E9BC23F9A3A@namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 5246c55d-4621-429c-6d89-08d6defe29f9
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 22 May 2019 21:40:52.5074 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 5ae1af62-9505-4097-a69a-c1553ef7840e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-mailboxtype: HOSTED
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM5PR1101MB2331
X-OriginatorOrg: cisco.com
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 173.37.102.20, xch-rcd-010.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: alln-core-11.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/R91DoppIk41xCr0iymV2iWsgvOE>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Magnus Westerlund's No Objection on draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Wed, 22 May 2019 21:41:01 -0000

Hi,

On 2019-05-22, 3:44 AM, "Magnus Westerlund" <magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com> wrote:

    On 2019-05-21 18:03, Reshad Rahman (rrahman) wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Thank you for the review. Please see inline.
    >
    > On 2019-05-16, 7:47 AM, "Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker" <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
    >
    >     Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
    >     draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-13: No Objection
    >     
    >     When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
    >     email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
    >     introductory paragraph, however.)
    >     
    >     
    >     Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
    >     for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
    >     
    >     
    >     The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
    >     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif/
    >     
    >     
    >     
    >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >     COMMENT:
    >     ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >     
    >     Section 4:
    >     
    >     Based on the QoS discussion for draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications
    >     weight is not really a a priority in the terms people think of it. It only
    >     provides a weight for bandwidth allocation.
    >     
    >        o  take any existing subscription "priority", as specified by the
    >           "weighting" leaf node in
    >           [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and copy it
    >           into the HTTP2 stream weight, [RFC7540] section 5.3, and
    >     
    >     I would recommend that the use of "priority" is reformualted here to reflect
    >     that aspect.
    > <RR> We got similar comments from another reviewer, the proposed new text for the next revision is:
    > take the "weighting" leaf node in  [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and copy it into the HTTP2 stream weight, [RFC7540] section 5.3, and ...
    > Would this address your comment?
    
    Yes, that is at least actionable.
    
    
    >     
    >        o  take any existing subscription "dependency", as specified by the
    >           "dependency" leaf node in
    >           [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications], and use the
    >           HTTP2 stream for the parent subscription as the HTTP2 stream
    >           dependency, [RFC7540] section 5.3.1, of the dependent
    >           subscription.
    >     
    >     What is not obivous to me is that just because that a subscription exists at
    >     the publisher that it is going over the same HTTP/2 connection and thus there
    >     might be nothing for the dependency to point at that is relevant for the
    >     mechanism described in RFC 7540. I didn't even find a recommendation that the
    >     receiver (subscriber) should actually re-use the HTTP/2 connection for all
    >     communication with the same publisher.
    >  <RR> Good point, this is not spelled out.  We will add text for the subscriber's reuse of the HTTP2 session:
    > for dynamic subscriptions to a specific publisher, all subscriber URI GET requests MUST use a common HTTP2 session for a particular DSCP value.
    
    Is that really a MUST? I would understand a RECOMMENDED to enable the
    dependency and weighting within the subscription using the same DSCP.
    However, what are the reasons to mandate it, and I don't believe it is
    enforceable as the publisher can't determine that a receiver is the same
    instance as another receiver, at least not if I assume that the
    receivers are instances running in a virtualized environment.
<RR2> You are correct. What about:
for dynamic subscriptions to a specific publisher, it is recommended that all subscriber URI GET requests use a common HTTP2 session for a particular DSCP value.

Regards,
Reshad.
    
    Cheers
    
    Magnus Westerlund 
    
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Network Architecture & Protocols, Ericsson Research
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ericsson AB                 | Phone  +46 10 7148287
    Torshamnsgatan 23           | Mobile +46 73 0949079
    SE-164 80 Stockholm, Sweden | mailto: magnus.westerlund@ericsson.com
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------