Re: [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <> Wed, 13 February 2019 14:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C59CC12867A for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:58:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.501 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GvWdbcA8lLvY for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:58:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DE781274D0 for <>; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:58:50 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=18046; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1550069931; x=1551279531; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=1YHFZQniREyWZvBoA/RGiGCmihUcrY84Ah6Fg3Zk2+k=; b=Zgtnup34PE9hvYwTvx1tUn+d8x+sSXTJDX2QTICq6IcjKzQF5kBlOef0 p4OYIkJC2gl458ZvFmBN8A5ULPO8lJJnLi/PNFBw8Bq1kQJgXpMfCJaun /dJzLNAZg8UWN6GJg48ynh7r5RLrcNtiuxnOEC1Z1qt7k8aPoaVcLhGqi g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ADAADbL2Rc/4YNJK1jGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAQGBUQQBAQEBAQsBgQ1NKWeBAzGMFYtzgg2YE4F7CwEBhGw?= =?us-ascii?q?Cg1kiNAkNAQMBAQIBAQJtKIVKAQEBBAwhRQUSAgEIFRAhMiUBAQQBGhOCPks?= =?us-ascii?q?BgR1kqwmKK4xEF4FAP4ERgxKKYQKQIJMHCQKSSSGSb4o1kWgCERSBJx84gVZ?= =?us-ascii?q?wFTuCbZBcQY8SgR8BAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.58,365,1544486400"; d="scan'208,217";a="237783518"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Feb 2019 14:58:49 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x1DEwne1018998 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:58:49 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:58:48 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1395.000; Wed, 13 Feb 2019 09:58:48 -0500
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>
To: Rohit R Ranade <>, Netconf <>
Thread-Topic: Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16
Thread-Index: AdTDTNHz0tddb+pOReG4UYkemLiJQAAWkahg
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:58:48 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6fb11a5eb32c494fb0bdfbb6205dd53dXCHRTP013ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Comments on draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-16
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:58:53 -0000

Hi Rohit,

Thanks for looking through and commenting.  I am posting v17 which includes the conclusion of the error-tag discussion from several weeks ago, as well as some tweaks based on your comments below.

From: Rohit R Ranade, February 12, 2019 11:23 PM

Hi All,


1.       "resynch-subscription" is used in 4 places with an additional 'h' after sync. It is "resync-subscription" in draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-22
<eric> fixed

2.       Section 7  bullet 3, "this MAY but does not have to be included", can be replaced with just "optional" ?
<eric> Either should work.  We might as well leave the current text.

3.       Section 7, bullet 4,  "section 2.4.6" link looks to be broken.
<eric> Why does this seem to be broken?  The list of identities is in draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications section 2.4.6.

4.       Section 5 refers to many RPCs, but there is no reference to the documents which define these RPCs.
<eric>  It seems excessive to me, as this entire document refers to [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications] and [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push].  But to make it clear where the RPCs come from, I moved the following sentence from the beginning of Section 7 to the beginning of Section 5.
Management of dynamic subscriptions occurs via RPCs as defined in [I-D.ietf-netconf-yang-push] and [I-D.draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications].

5.       Since there are many RPC names used, there are too many hyperlinks pointing to their sources in the document. Whether we can have a separate section which provides the list of RPCs used in this draft and their source document. The increase in hyperlinks leads to distraction while reading.
<eric> The links should be simplified once they collapse to RFC references.  At this point it would be great if the document is not be re-opened for new sections.


1.       Section 3 "reply with the [RFC6241] error "operation-not-supported"". I think this should be an "<rpc-error> element is returned with an <error-tag> value of "operation-not-supported". Similar occurrence in another place in same section.
<eric> I tweaked the text to:  A solution MUST reply with the [RFC6241] "rpc-error" element containing the "error-tag" value of "operation-not-supported" if...

2.       Is the intention that RFC5277 be implemented and then this draft be supported on top of it ? I see that there are 7 references to RFC5277 , including definitions of <notification> and its encoding mechanism. Whether we can add a statement regarding this point ?
<eric>  A section on this relationship is contained in Section 1.4 of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications


With Regards,
Rohit R