[netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 3:45 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Dear Andy,
>
>
>
> AB> What is the notif-yang issue, exactly?
>
>
>
> TG> Med posted the following concern and objection:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/Abw9mRHZos_yK9-x1HWHCVyv_xM/
>
> TG> Kent raised the question wherever YANG notifications can be encoded in
> JSON. I described my reasoning why today it cannot be encoded in JSON and
> CBOR here:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/e_PsL-RK0f7jXKpeQSPdiHxgRno/
>
>
>

I think the module name "ietf-restconf" is used for JSON.
Not a problem.


> AB> YANG does not support abstract elements like XSD.
>
> AB> It is not possible to use YANG to define the NotificationContent
> element.
>
>
>
> TG> I requested a problem description here on the mailing list:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/B3CML33wZJ0h6pSnB3S88HSh8O4/.
> Your reply
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/g7KomEpdr2bthjuGTaAMZfyFvcg/
> did not answer my question. I would appreciate a more detailed problem
> description with concrete references to existing documents and paragraphs
> describing reasoning.
>
>
>

I incorrectly commented on the Message Broker work.
That is outside the scope of this notif structure draft.
The notif structure is not useful for validation of the notification
element.

Best wishes
>
> Thomas
>

Andy


>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>
> *Sent:* Friday, June 14, 2024 11:34 AM
> *To:* Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* [netconf] Re: Adoption call for notif-yang-04
>
>
>
> *Be aware:* This is an external email.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 2:20 AM Benoit Claise <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> On 6/14/2024 4:34 AM, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 9:32 AM Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear WG,
>
> This adoption call was unsuccessful.
>
> There is obviously a lot of interest, but the solution doesn’t seem
> adequate, given the comments made on the list.  Not to disparage the
> effort, but the problem is rather intractable!
>
> Andy mentioned that an Interim may be needed, which seems right (+1 if you
> agree), but I wonder if there isn’t more that can be done in preparation
> first.  Specifically, as this effort challenges fundamentals, it would help
> to clarify the motivation and expected outcomes.
>
>
>
> +1 to a better functional specification
>
> An interim for which content?
>
>
>
> I don't think an interim is required vs. email discussion.
>
>
>
> We started with an adoption call on notif-yang-04 and it seems that
> discussion went in all directions. From the below message
>     - new fields in notification header
>     - binary encoding
>
> Maybe we should focus just on notif-yang issue, to start with?
>
>
>
> What is the notif-yang issue, exactly?
>
> YANG does not support abstract elements like XSD.
>
> It is not possible to use YANG to define the NotificationContent element.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regards, Benoit
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> IMO there are no implementation problems caused by the RFC 5277 XSD for
> the notification element.
>
> YANG is incapable of validating this element, but it is a trivial
> structure, easy to validate.
>
>
>
> It is not clear to me that any new fields are needed in the notification
> header.
>
> The NETCONF WG discussed multiple timestamps pre-5277 and decided against
> it.
>
> Same for 'sequence-id'. IMO these are OK for YANG Push augments.
>
>
>
> I supported this draft as a way to get 2 SID assignments.
>
>
>
> IMO the NETCONF WG needs to make Binary YANG Push a top priority.
>
> This needs to be protocol-independent as possible (not UDP-specific).
>
> I think YANG Push can be simplified and improved. (But not in this WG)
>
>
>
>
>
> One high-level question I have, is there anything wrong with the
> “notification” statement in RFC 7950?  That is, is this at all a YANG-next
> issue for the NETMOD WG, or is to purely NETCONF WG issue?
>
> Kent
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 6, 2024, at 6:14 PM, Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > NETCONF WG,
> >
> > This message starts a two week poll on adopting the following document:
> >
> >       YANG model for NETCONF Event Notifications
> >
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ahuang-netconf-notif-yang-04
> >
> > The poll ends April 20.
> >
> > Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support” or "no/do not
> support".  If indicating no, please state your reservations with the
> document.  If yes, please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to
> see addressed once the document is a WG document.
> >
> > No IPR is known for this document:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/oQVZ6Pf_novNfMB4RsnDxQibHpM/
> >
> > PS: this document received strong support before, being very focused,
> providing just a module enabling validation of YANG “notification” messages.
> >
> > Kent and Per (as co-chairs)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> netconf mailing list -- [e-mail]
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
>
>
>
>