[netconf] RE: Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00

wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com> Wed, 11 September 2019 07:58 UTC

Return-Path: <wangzitao@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netconf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411AE120810 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OKfD5-zUh9rs for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:58:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A1FFC120143 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 00:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 3AAA83B357742B4CC8D0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:58:13 +0100 (IST)
Received: from DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ( by lhreml708-cah.china.huawei.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 08:58:12 +0100
Received: from DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com ([]) by DGGEMM404-HUB.china.huawei.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 15:58:07 +0800
From: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
CC: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: RE: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00
Thread-Index: AdVodYbehJUK94P6T123JJPZgOneJg==
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 07:58:06 +0000
Message-ID: <E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2DAF7D5B@DGGEMM527-MBX.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E6BC9BBCBCACC246846FC685F9FF41EA2DAF7D5BDGGEMM527MBXchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/XQU4jyC-132U8y7krnG7Kc55Ueo>
Subject: [netconf] RE: Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00
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, 11 Sep 2019 07:58:18 -0000

Hi Kent,

Thank you for your reply.
I am trying to understand the relationship and usage of this draft and a set of netconf drafts:
This model present the receiver's information (such as IP, port, etc) and it augment the ietf-subscription-notification model that the user can specify multiple subscription receivers.
And the user also need to configure the server to specify receiver's port and IP (via ietf-client-server?). That the server can call home to the receivers.
Is my understanding correct? If yes, I suggest that a brief description of the workflow should be present in the draft.

Best Regards!

发件人: Kent Watsen [mailto:kent+ietf@watsen.net]
发送时间: 2019年9月11日 13:16
收件人: wangzitao <wangzitao@huawei.com>
抄送: netconf@ietf.org
主题: Re: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00

Hi Michael,

IMHO, this model can be used in call-home scenarios, for example the server can initiate a transport session to those receivers in the subscription using the address and port specified.
Therefore, I suggest to add some attributes, such as Listen Port, to support call-home.

I'm not entirely sure I follow you.

Firstly, the draft is describing the NC/RC server initiating a protocol connection to a remote peer (the receiver).  So, in this since, it is "call home" already.

That said, maybe you mean "call home" in the sense of protocol-reversals (e.g., reverse TLS).  If so, note that the protocol being discussed here is more like Syslog than RESTCONF.   If it were Syslog, would you also to think there is a need to have a protocol-reversal?

Kent // as co-author