Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 14:36 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 BDFF2130EEB for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:36:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, 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 tofztPD7AE_O for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3963130EBD for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 07:36:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-80-27.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [212.85.80.27]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E682B1AE0385; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:36:44 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 16:36:44 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20180620.163644.1720895466004628492.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kwatsen@juniper.net
Cc: evoit@cisco.com, j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de, alexander.clemm@huawei.com, alex@clemm.org, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <956FD389-752F-4907-995F-1493F4EDC069@juniper.net>
References: <A0ECF1FF-FF88-4BE3-A722-D681B9CF6F78@juniper.net> <03a8630197c04815a3aa6d85d667f678@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <956FD389-752F-4907-995F-1493F4EDC069@juniper.net>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / 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/ZhTMo46WBlAdKXKUww5AwwdB5KA>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
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: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 14:36:48 -0000

Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> > I had always seen as subscribed-notifications as a control plane improvement to RFC-5277.
> 
> Let hope so  ;)
> 
> 
> 
> > Explicitly excluding XSD, SYSLOG, vendor structures, etc. seems unnecessary.   
> 
> XSD is another DML, maybe you meant XML?  
> 
> SYSLOG is a protocol, I think you mean to say that folks might encapsulate
> syslog messages inside a <notification> element.  This is fine, I suggest
> defining a notification called something like "syslog-message" that is
> essentially a leaf of type "string".
> 
> Vendor structures are like Syslog, they can be even be binary if the leaf
> is of type "binary".
> 
> I'm not trying to exclude anything, what gets excluded?

I agree with Kent.  5277 was pre-YANG, so it could not be tied to the
"notification" message.  Even 5277 could not transport any data - it
had to be encoded in XML.  This new draft is more flexible since it
can be used with XML and JSON (and other encodings) - *because* it
transports YANG notifications.



/martin


> > I can ping a few people who have legacy implementations which might
> > be closer to this than I.   Narrowing the scope in this way should
> > be broadly discussed.
> 
> But is it narrowing the scope any? (see above)
> 
> 
> 
> > > > It would be helpful to get some comments on draft-ietf-netconf-
> > > > notification-messages.
> > > > This draft address improvements to the opaque data blobs.
> > > 
> > > Perhaps tease us with a little more detail?  ;)
> >
> > Pretty much all the common headers in Section 3 and the message
> > bundling in Section 4 are both improvements which are relevant
> > to this thread. Tianran likely will have some new headers he
> > wants added as part of the multi-line card work.
> 
> I don't see the relation to opaque data here. The "notification-contents"
> description says "Encapsulates objects following YANG's notification-stmt
> grammar of RFC-7950 section 14."  That doesn't sound like it would be
> very opaque.
> 
> 
> Kent
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>