Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscriptions? (was RE: LC on subscribed-notifications-10)

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 05 July 2018 18:18 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@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 326D512DD85 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:18:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, 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
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 LWJjcvVhopuJ for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:18:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68EE8130F53 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 11:18:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2390; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1530814683; x=1532024283; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=SOZEp6O5S1tBaG0amQdj/3AM1P/ihLU+KK6EqSzAsog=; b=O/5x1WA2HoN/isD+DzBmSwDQolBkrWn9MOfS6g65SB9aWH2rpevLqNsZ fQtlM6xVFXxgm3UQEV2cvJW6V9SiUshISY0AnT2AB/cZ2sT//NpGwKFje j/Ml0MDdDbubiT4iVGcoVLasK8ryLHTtfh3QICPt+cxapo/iSx8uI1eDd 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BZAgDMXz5b/4cNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYMfKoFhMoNwiASMNIIHgziReIF6C4RsAheCFiE0GAECAQECAQECbSiFNgEBAQECASMRQwIFCwIBCA4HBQIJFgcCAgIwFRACBAENDYJNgkMIqTGCHIhLgTqBC4digVY/gQ+CYS6EZIMXglUCmUwJAo8WjV+RYgIREwGBJB04gVJwFYMlgiMXEY4GjnkqgQSBGgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,313,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="419801925"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 05 Jul 2018 18:18:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w65II25R016696 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 5 Jul 2018 18:18:02 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:18:01 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Thu, 5 Jul 2018 14:18:01 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: Henk Birkholz <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscriptions? (was RE: LC on subscribed-notifications-10)
Thread-Index: AQHUC7Bk2NEfjxedcUmM/mAqvL2qMaRxMGsAgABNWwCACxi18IABmkaAgAGYmoD//77DcIABoTAA///VGaA=
Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 18:18:01 +0000
Message-ID: <43507a18831540f195c9c2179c781155@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <4df95162a0a8464b884c4e88268df8ca@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <DBD6B0CC-FE74-4C5A-A318-C96C8FBE11FE@sit.fraunhofer.de> <858F63BA-37A2-4925-B340-4DD79CEBEEF9@juniper.net> <CABCOCHTux6+pW=0xhPsgVKWqAr5uNKTNW-Qgv5CpV06Ki1hd-g@mail.gmail.com> <8c68a8ce85d946579f325e311a8e67a9@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <D9AB67AB-A0B2-4D04-8672-76B704800C86@juniper.net> <CABCOCHQjYHYomj1ES+0bH2pOaJZ4Wa_z3suQiJpASmDXP35teg@mail.gmail.com> <2707704d84354cb784e0d2ae001bc599@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <FF87E28E-5BC4-424A-84B0-C54DF0C49E02@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <FF87E28E-5BC4-424A-84B0-C54DF0C49E02@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.230]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Yg366O0vLF0yXdv3v8LEZkNYSKg>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscriptions? (was RE: LC on subscribed-notifications-10)
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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, 05 Jul 2018 18:18:10 -0000

> From: Kent Watsen, July 5, 2018 12:40 PM
> 
> Hi Eric,
> 
> > The open question here is whether we mandate the NETCONF call-home
> > work as a dependency.    If the WG wishes, we could close WGLC on
> > Subscribed-notifications and YANG-push, and leave just NETCONF-Notif
> > open until ietf-netconf-server completes.  But the downside would be
> > that it would leave NETCONF transport for dynamic subscriptions undefined.
> 
> Just focusing on the "downside" here, how would it be undefined?  Since it is a
> *dynamic* subscription, the transport is the same as the one the client used to
> connect to the server with.  Perhaps you mean that it wouldn't be possible for
> the client to know (other than simply trying the establish-subscription RPC) if
> SN is supported for the specific transport used between the client and the
> server.

I don't mean this.

> For this, I believe it is sufficient for the client to look for the SN module in
> yang-library, since the yang-library response is server-specific (rfc7895bis,
> Section 1, paragraph 4).  Do you agree?

My undefined point was that leaving NETCONF-Notif open means that we don't progress sections 3, 4, 5.1, 6, 7 , & 10 of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications towards RFC.  These sections contain the needed requirements for dynamic subscriptions.

Balazs has proposed temporarily getting rid NETCONF configured subscriptions support to make progress.  This would result in the removal of draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications section 5.2, 8, A.3, and section A.4.1's "subscription-started" example.  These sections would be returned with a -bis corresponding to client-server draft availability.

Eric

> Kent
> 
> 
>