Re: [netconf] [netconf-wg/https-notif] Should the receivers container be moved under the augment statement and the leafref renamed? (#2)

Kent Watsen <> Tue, 11 February 2020 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF771120170 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:26:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] 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 D7pRtlJMObNG for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:26:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6F64E120164 for <>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 07:26:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw;; t=1581434759; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=PnwOYWrpDLWsYVGK8UXZOt1KD9BD1xE8IduN8jAswJI=; b=Zvy5404eki1UPvDldGzblyPYp+q/xxHiKmbzp9qvYRQ4AHHULif4N0bP0o3GkGcw JGhGU9JhIG1lHzZYROC7i44IMJ57tZuANjMxSGrvZt0eQXimygzDOe5nwt7vo/8yRaD 18Z2jtHix64I8nlu+Jb6x873hahOU/eEtYYU1Le0=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Kent Watsen <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:25:59 +0000
Cc: "" <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <>
References: <netconf-wg/https-notif/issues/2/> <> <> <>
To: Martin Bjorklund <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.02.11-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [netconf-wg/https-notif] Should the receivers container be moved under the augment statement and the leafref renamed? (#2)
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: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 15:26:02 -0000

Hi Martin,

>>>> The reason to not move the receiver container under the augment is so
>>>> as to allow the leafref to point to multiple receivers.
>>> I don't understand this reason.
>> Each "receiver" (in https-notif) maps to an HTTPS connection from the
>> publisher to the receiver.
>> There is likely to be more than one configured subscription, yet all
>> notifications should go to the same receiver.
>> We'd like to use the same HTTPS "connection" for all, as opposed to
>> having an HTTPS connection for each.
>> The "receiver-ref" leaf provides an indirection enabling this
>> many-to-one relationship.
> I can't find the original thread about this issue, so I'll rephrase
> what I (think I) wrote from the start:
> I understand the reason for the many-to-one, and I wish we had that in
> the base model itself (i.e., RFC 8639), so that protocol-documents
> didn't have to invent this, and so that we could have
> receiver-specific config in one place.

I agree, it would’ve been better in RFC 8639.  I recall Juergen writing once that he expected it to be a common pattern.  But that is behind us now, or are you suggesting a -bis?  Is there is an action coming out of this fork in the thread?

>>> Since this is not a stand-alone model, I think it should augment
>>> /sn:subscriptions.  In some way it doesn't matter what nodes are
>>> called and where they are located, but having descriptive names and
>>> keep related nodes under common subtrees helps the understanding of
>>> models.
>> Is s/receiver-ref/https-receiver-ref/ what you had in mind?
> Yes, as a minimum.
> I would also change the top-level container "receivers" to augment
> /sn:subscriptions:
>  augemnt /sn:subscriptions {
>    container https-receivers {
>      ...
>    }
>  }

Ah, I see now, thank you for providing the snippet.

Kent // contributor