Re: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-04.txt

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 24 October 2018 15:58 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 19B78130FA6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:58:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.971
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.971 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.47, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 KlooZd0DJH_F for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:58:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0369130F2D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 08:58:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9352; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1540396695; x=1541606295; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=x/q5RgBKn48k+YkD2ZTxHNA2PmcJjvM4bSpKO3ZRL9Q=; b=JshVKHLfCrOA3xpRgfMuAAJtI+9Yk/iYDDqcAPyKmg3j4K/fnwJBG3Rp IQgQDNYmNjbQCO83jiURcjAh+Ad5bzrbon35xeKlq3n2HLPQiTtQXpPIu 5hR9091KWYu/Oo9V0uDWu46YGrWd7CWd1xTvT9unRZv0cLEk4x+6B94Yk M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AOAADNldBb/5JdJa1jGgEBAQEBAgEBAQEHAgEBAQGBUQUBAQEBCwGBWipmfygKg2uIGIwXgg2DP5NWgXoLAQEYC4QDRgIXgnQhNA0NAQMBAQIBAQJtHAyFOgEBAQMBAQEhEToLBQsCAQYCDgcDAgIJGgMCAgIlCxQBEAIEDgUIE4I7TIF5CA+NT5tNgS6EPkCFJYELilcXgUE/gyV+gxsBAQIBARaBMS2CbIJXAohrAQOVYQkChmGKCR+BUkyEKIlqjFyJaAIRFIEmHTiBVXAVGiGCbAmLEIU+b4wOgR8BAQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.54,420,1534809600"; d="scan'208";a="474305886"
Received: from rcdn-core-10.cisco.com ([173.37.93.146]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 24 Oct 2018 15:58:14 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by rcdn-core-10.cisco.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id w9OFwEng020741 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:58:14 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:58:12 -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 15.00.1395.000; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 11:58:13 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
CC: "zhoutianran@huawei.com" <zhoutianran@huawei.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-04.txt
Thread-Index: AQHUZ4Rrm8pfbSLxKUe+ngRTKIVD9qUqtcoAgAIqymyAAAS+cIAAk9eA///9weCAAU/RAP//vu7w
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 15:58:13 +0000
Message-ID: <1878c239acdd4133814b204d52148f37@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <bd73e6666dad43baad45062ee5e65555@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20181023.205949.331237716902693817.mbj@tail-f.com> <8888c964b0f74f6184731672bfc3ccc5@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20181024.165342.1084815064462844822.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181024.165342.1084815064462844822.mbj@tail-f.com>
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: [10.118.56.234]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Outbound-SMTP-Client: 64.101.220.151, xch-rtp-011.cisco.com
X-Outbound-Node: rcdn-core-10.cisco.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/aWoxsZwDNhgdRtGmNE7oo1j68A0>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] I-D Action: draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-04.txt
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 24 Oct 2018 15:58:34 -0000

> From: Martin Bjorklund, October 24, 2018 10:54 AM
> 
> "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > > Hi Tianran,
> > > >
> > > > The definition of dynamic subscription does allow for different
> > > > transports to be used for notifications.  So I agree that
> > > > augmenting “transport” into the <establish-subscription> RPC is
> > > > the way to accomplish this.
> > >
> > > Which module should do this augment?
> >
> > My assumption is that a new model contained within this draft will be
> > needed to do the augmentations described within this thread.
> 
> Do you mean a new transport-agnostic model?

In theory it could be transport-agnostic.  But it also could be specific to what the authors are trying to do with UDP and draft-zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators.   (If the authors wants to attempt a generalization here, I would be interested in providing review/input.  It is a complex topic.)

> > >  If this really is the intention, why not put this leaf in the base
> > > SN  model?
> >
> > We didn't put it in due to the complexity.  It is true that enabling
> > an optional leaf in the RPC would be easy.  However the rules for
> > fate-sharing these event notifications with an independent signaling
> > transport session are not so easy to do in a transport agnostic
> > specification.
> 
> So this have to be dealt with now, in this draft?

I think so.  There are other coupled complexities which likely need to be addressed in unison.  These include the independent entities "subscription server" and "component subscription server" described in the solution overview.   While these entities are best defined in draft-zhou-netconf-multi-stream-originators, the pub-channel draft does depend on that componentization.  And this breakdown should add new items to the SN YANG model.  (e.g., what subset of XPATH filters should be handled by each "component subscription server".)

Eric

> > I.e., defining how to handle/fate-share different transports for
> > dynamic subscription signaling and event delivery is a bit of
> > complexity which didn't need to be taken on by the base SN draft.
> >
> > > (Wasn't it present in some previous version?)
> >
> > I don't believe so.
> 
> Ok.
> /martin
> 
> 
> >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Additionally if you wanted, information on Figure 2’s destination
> > > > ports or addresses/ports could be augmented in as part of an
> > > > <establish-subscription> request.  But whether that is needed is
> > > > up to you.
> > >
> > > Hmm, was this the reason for not having a generic 'transport' in
> > > establish-
> > > subscription?
> >
> > A reason, but not the prime reason.  The prime reason was that in the
> > simplest/dominant case it is easy to use the transport of the RPC is
> > the desired transport for the event notifications.  It is always
> > possible to augment.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Eric
> > > >
> > > > From: Tianran Zhou, October 23, 2018 9:54 AM
> > > >
> > > > Hi Martin,
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for the review. You are right, that is also our concern
> > > > on the dynamic subscription.
> > > > Is this operation legal by the dynamic subscription definition?
> > > > If so, we can augment the establish-subsciption RPC with an
> > > > transport option.
> > > >
> > > > Tianran
> > > > --------------------------------------------------
> > > > Sent from WeLink
> > > > 发件人:Martin Bjorklund
> > > > 收件人:netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>,
> > > > 时间:2018-10-22 21:48:43
> > > > 主 题:Re: [Netconf] I-D Action:
> > > > draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-04.txt
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > In section 4.1, this draft explains how a dynamic subscription can
> > > > be used with UPC.  How is this supposed to work?  There is no way
> > > > to indicate in an <establish-subscription> that the UPC protocol
> > > > should be used instead of sending <notifications> to the NETCONF
> > > > client that sent the <establish-subscription>.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > internet-drafts@ietf.org<mailto:internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line
> > > > > Internet-Drafts directories.
> > > > > This draft is a work item of the Network Configuration WG of the IETF.
> > > > >
> > > > >         Title : UDP based Publication Channel for Streaming Telemetry
> > > > >         Authors         : Guangying Zheng
> > > > >                           Tianran Zhou
> > > > >                           Alexander Clemm
> > > > >        Filename        : draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-04.txt
> > > > >        Pages           : 22
> > > > >        Date            : 2018-10-19
> > > > >
> > > > > Abstract:
> > > > >    This document describes a UDP-based publication channel for
> streaming
> > > > >    telemetry use to collect data from devices.  A new shim header is
> > > > >    proposed to facilitate the distributed data collection mechanism
> > > > >    which directly pushes data from line cards to the collector.  Because
> > > > >    of the lightweight UDP encapsulation, higher frequency and better
> > > > >    transit performance can be achieved.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-chan
> > > > > nel/
> > > > >
> > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-0
> > > > > 4
> > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub
> > > > > -cha
> > > > > nnel-04
> > > > >
> > > > > A diff from the previous version is available at:
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-cha
> > > > > nnel
> > > > > -04
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time
> > > > > of submission until the htmlized version and diff are available
> > > > > at tools.ietf.org.
> > > > >
> > > > > Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> > > > > ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Netconf mailing list
> > > > > Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Netconf mailing list
> > > > Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org>
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf