Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06

"maqiufang (A)" <> Thu, 04 February 2021 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 677F33A1373 for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 23:28:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id acrBTmvQrgNA for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 23:28:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B57733A1372 for <>; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 23:28:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4DWVP42rXXz67kkV for <>; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:22:16 +0800 (CST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2106.2; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 08:28:31 +0100
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2106.2; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:28:30 +0800
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.2106.006; Thu, 4 Feb 2021 15:28:30 +0800
From: "maqiufang (A)" <>
To: Kent Watsen <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06
Thread-Index: AQHW91XvRUspf6oo7ECvf5qPey2iLapBK5iAgAHPkYCAAfb+AIACqp3Q
Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 07:28:30 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_cb57b46caf25410dacb1e37b6ce91393huaweicom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2021 07:28:43 -0000

Hi, Kent:

I have read the latest version and find it more flexible.
Here comes a few suggestions:

1、 You have got a wrong link at the end of section 1.1. It supposed to be Appendix A.2, rather than Section 8.2.

2、 It seems that you are mix-using HTTP and HTTPS somewhere, for example,  "The protocol consists of two HTTP-based target resources presented by the receiver"(Should be “HTTPS-based”, I think).

3、 Section 3.3/4.2: Will the receiver return a HTTP 200/204 definitely? Should we consider some other extreme situations( e.g., not supported/implemented) ? Just my individual opinion.:)

4、 Section 4.3: You should replace "<event-class>fault</fault>" with "<event-class>fault</event-class>".

Qiufang Ma

From: netconf [] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06


      The just posted -07 addresses issues raised thus far.

Henning, Eric, Reshad,

      Please re-review as your comments are important to us.

Everyone else,

      The hasn’t been many reviews as yet.  Please review this
      version, as it is significantly better (ready for publication?)
      than the prevision version.


On Feb 1, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Reshad Rahman <<>> wrote:

Good with me.


From: Kent Watsen <<>>
Date: Sunday, January 31, 2021 at 7:54 AM
To: Reshad Rahman <<>>
Cc: "<>" <<>>, "<>" <<>>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06

I've reviewed this document and I think the document will be ready once the changes planned by the authors (regarding notification-messages) are made.

Thanks, but a couple more problems:

1) the URLs are bad.  Specifically, the example in the “Learning Receiver Capabilities” section uses a nonsensical URL (‘/‘).   The authors propose to instead use a sub-resource to the user-configured “path” (e.g., GET /some/path/capabilities) and move the POST URL to another sub-resource (e.g., /some/path/relay-notification).  [see below for more on this]

2) the media-types are bad: “application/yang-data+[xml/json]” is used for notifications, which is wrong since they are not YANG-defined, and the custom media-types for capabilities (application/ietf-https-notif-cap+[xml/json]) is a way overkill.  The authors propose to use “application/[xml/json]” for both cases.

I have a question on the following YANG description. Section 4.1 mentions 'path-absolute' for the URI but the description below says "Relative URI...". Should this description be clarified/corrected or am I missing something?

            augment "transport/tls/tls/http-client-parameters" {
              leaf path {
                type string;
                  "Relative URI to the target resource.";
                "Augmentation to add a path to the target resource.";

Agreed.  How about this?

        leaf path {
          type string;
          mandatory true;
            "URI prefix to the target resources.  Under this
             path the receiver must support both the 'capabilities'
             and 'relay-notification' resource targets, as described
             in RFC XXXX.";
So, if path==“/som/path”, capability-discovery would be to "/some/path/capabilities” and notifications would be sent to “/some/path/relay-notification”.


Formatting nit:
           Trust anchors (i.e. CA certs) that are used to authenticat\

Fixed, but the other example cannot be fixed because the “xmlns” strings alone are too long, and XML doesn’t internally support folding, and the “string” type doesn’t allows for whitespace (include ‘\n’) both at the beginning and end of strings (recall my request for rfc6991-bis to define a “token” type that would enable the parser to discard any found, so our examples could more often be manually-folded).