[netconf] netconf-https-notif-draft HTTP "pipelining"

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Thu, 14 January 2021 07:29 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@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 0D5EE3A11F8 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 23:29:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 hDHAe4z35EsQ for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 23:29:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x136.google.com (mail-lf1-x136.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::136]) (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 9E18F3A11F7 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 23:29:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x136.google.com with SMTP id s26so6632816lfc.8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 23:29:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gCzkoWE703pf4Zqib0Va7PGrTG90EDZEtPHtABRVkQg=; b=fLNVMDSrE4KVygWQVP5KLE8ps/p3K7JTY4WplpM5n1bvqJRnLPFiNZwvGRsRtoehxN NmnvR9zfwEeXnjZJXkWAKJZCu51OSpq+I0e5CT++WVraxsbs39hqAsI51uF3EvgZ7fEW 5/JFUA47KcOqruMo+DsOYVqq5i8lCYUfwuRK2GkrBb4PEjnr6sWPG4O9ZTWxhT8m1cz9 P7SioW5L2IC5CmaefbOf3nScb37/Uup09dnZO8MBf4fB8TWYUuTgWiLz2T2baiYiaFsy mgYTc7ofZijs3VqKRgqL7vK6FYQj8c2SRKy+QmitJHJKldgwEnchwJa69vft2E9a8Ek0 M6tQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=gCzkoWE703pf4Zqib0Va7PGrTG90EDZEtPHtABRVkQg=; b=rIKX3/y0AGMFbMzs/nFjxZvDMCjnpH4KY3GpFs1QNIP28iwgZBIQkD15EYeYZjDKWC 4BajpGlK6kuKLx7y2lJNAzWXAD9VnXgPsLxG2JmJYOZycLnBY9Sue3/Ojcw1jT3BOC9V 9NTJVSVTo3z8lw8Pq82wW5ObdagGTTnmPCKrIMmHifUiShHq5Di0MIfif4Xs/zOUFDeO siz6nztPEq5AxDsJZsLEkEbo2hV48KYL4w3zilNdL5HJ7mAbzrgsF720Tfp/KirA5iGa Okw0uwINAFlUoM82uUuHzhavizsyOI5wD3lXk71kKNne7G4DQnawsI4V4zVxowPTmPX/ xpAg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531kz+Q8iGH6O4hF6r+at2atNGz5rrsE/BjdJ6A/PKyM6a5oje0N gmXYWyBRhabYUTcCkhX2HngRt2j+ER8Uc9ClmfsxMrGOGRk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwv7OzhyUiMLg8wpOy39NF0/e2S39/2aAXBg3lhogFsGEle38Sv29aI8JYst10oBDYS3CzaYy4s4IAzPngg5Z8=
X-Received: by 2002:a19:7407:: with SMTP id v7mr2937861lfe.430.1610609395176; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 23:29:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 08:29:29 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvuqe9iAbkgxak7m8c4UDGEVjmDif0ri5MpeQDm3KcG0viA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/T7cRAVGFzT05F3PtmXwezIh1uhU>
Subject: [netconf] netconf-https-notif-draft HTTP "pipelining"
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: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 07:29:59 -0000

Hi,

I had a longer discussion with Kent Watsen yesterday and he asked me
to get the questions about the netconf-https-notif-draft to the
mailing list:

In section 1.5.1 the draft talks about "pipelining" of messages. Is
this meant equivalent to "HTTP 1.1 pipelining" or is this just a
technique unique to the draft? If this is not something reused from
HTTP, maybe there should be some advice on how this interacts with
normal HTTP server/client code.

Also the example in 1.5.1 seems to contradict each other.

The overview (page 5) shows the Publisher sending HTTPS POST message
once for each notification (which I think is important because the URL
is part of the context of the message)... but the content description
(page 6) does only show a single POST with multiple responses. Same is
true for chapter 8.3.

Henning Rogge