[Netconf] question about "event drafts"
Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 31 August 2016 15:51 UTC
Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 7B4C712D12B for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:51:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 gvfVoZh16iNY for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:51:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2162212D520 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 08:40:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-85-226.a165.priv.bahnhof.se [94.254.85.226]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DD03A1AE035B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:40:19 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:40:19 +0200
Message-Id: <20160831.174019.1420525303963119375.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.5 on Emacs 24.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Z2HOGB2LJJioXWLyEa8VcPXl8I8>
Subject: [Netconf] question about "event drafts"
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Wed, 31 Aug 2016 15:51:22 -0000
Hi, I just watched the recorded NETCONF session from IETF 96, and read the minutes. In the minutes I read that four new drafts related to event notifications are supposed to be adopted, after validation on the ML. I haven't seen any email about this adoption, and I don't understand which four drafts you referred to. I can guess that three of them are: draft-gonzalez-netconf-event-notifications-00 draft-gonzalez-netconf-5277bis-02 draft-voit-netconf-restconf-notif-00 I don't think that these documents are ready for adoption. It is not clear to me how they are supposed to work. First of all, we have the 5277bis document, which apparently doesn't obsolete 5277. However, the event-notifications draft says that it obsoletes 5277. Also, there is still quite some overlap between the documents. For example, 5277bis says: This document defines mechanisms that provide an asynchronous message notification delivery service for the NETCONF protocol . This is an optional capability built on top of the base NETCONF definition. And draft-gonzalez-netconf-event-notifications says: This document defines the support of [event-notifications] by the Network Configuration protocol (NETCONF). So it seems both drafts define how notifications are sent over NETCONF. Further, the intent of draft-voit-netconf-restconf-notif-00 is not clear. RESTCONF already supports notifications, and this new draft has: 3.1.1. Dynamic YANG Subscription over RESTCONF Dynamic Subscriptions are configured and manage Subscriptions via signaling. This signaling is transported over [restconf]. Once established, streaming Event Notifications are then delivered via Restconf SSE. I don't understand what this means. I think that this confusion is basically just the result of some reshuffling of contents, and that's fine. But I think that the intent of each individual draft must be more clear, and that the text in the drafts actually reflects this. /martin
- [Netconf] question about "event drafts" Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] question about "event drafts" Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] question about "event drafts" Martin Bjorklund