Re: [netconf] Virtual hum for the question on "https-notif" draft

[Martin Björklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

"Eric Voit \(evoit\)" <evoit=[e-mail]> wrote:
> From: Kent Watsen, April 27, 2020 11:28 AM
> 
>  On Apr 27, 2020, at 8:08 AM, Rob Wilton (rwilton) <rwilton=[e-mail]>
>  wrote:
> 
>  [As an individual contributor]
> 
>  Changing my stance somewhat from the NETCONF meeting …
> 
>  After looking into the details a bit more, section 7 of rfc8639 states:
> 
>  A specification for a transport MUST identify any encodings that are
> 
>  supported. If a configured subscription's transport allows different
> 
>  encodings, the specification MUST identify the default encoding.
> 
>  Does this imply that the http-notif draft either must state a default encoding (or otherwise
>  update rfc8639)?
> 
> It seems that way...at least when https-notif is being used for RFC 8639 (it doesn’t have to be).
> 
> Looking at the hum-results so far, 70% picked "Let the market decide” (with the remaining 30%
> all picking "Publisher MUST implement JSON encoding”).
> 
> In light of the RFC 8639 text quoted above, we might question the validity of the hum…or, given
> the strong preference from the hum, we might question the validity of that constraint in RFC
> 8639. If questioning RFC 8639, a better question to ask might be why the configurable “encoding”
> leaf isn’t mandatory (also eliminating this issue and seemingly cleaner)?

RFC 8639 explains that if the "encoding" leaf isn't configured, the
transport-default is used.  RFC 8639 also says that a transport must
have a transport-default.

That's the answer to the question: "why is 'encoding' optional?".


/martin


> 
> <eric> The WG feedback during RFC-8639 development was that encoding was often implied from
> transport. Therefore mandating exposure of this information in the model was overly verbose,
> and could result in misconfiguration.
> 
> Adding Martin to the thread as he was previosuly involved with this discussion.
> 
> Eric
> 
> <...>
> 
> Kent // contributor
> 
>  I’ve also filled in the virtual hum.
> 
>  Regards,
>  Rob
>