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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 13 June 2018 17:01 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 86B40130F3C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:01:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, 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 gO_P0yVdQWhi for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.142.92]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18AAE130EEB for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 10:01:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3618; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1528909287; x=1530118887; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=YintU/tbV3ALlgBNNkToz8adEOrJT2n8vWvUzhyTP4A=; b=fFJJqZJClahu4eqhxOHvtjMsLLpCG2QX9Ky8I9JTugLr6Cw3X6yTKpLv F7IZFJCvEUQw8aA2oKxqTKjHAoGXEIGGZmwks+mPCdI7lFEnalCnDF9tj 1SWsqLyzFqtMCWpWQB7LvRecvODmrdQEnLbO5VCx4GTo9Swq2e3T/nEFU Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0DFAACQTCFb/5ldJa1aAxkBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDSGJ/KAqLc4xpgX+UaRSBZAsjhANGAoI3ITQYAQIBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQECbRwMhSgBAQEBAgE6PQIFCQICAQgOAgUDDREQGxclAgQBDQ2DHIF3CA+?= =?us-ascii?q?uQYhGgWMFBYhGgVQ/hBuDEQIBgSwBEQIBCDcRFYUPApkKCQKOcY08kRYCERM?= =?us-ascii?q?BgSQdOGFxcBWCfoYwhGGFPm8BjgyBGgEB?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,219,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="128589577"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2018 17:01:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5DH1PPe021757 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:01:26 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:01:25 -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 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 13:01:25 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
CC: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
Thread-Index: AQHT/nTB7wTodISdV0qlE/sux4czBKRU8kawgAFinID///zC4IAAXMiA//++zTCABv5KgP//v8BQAAsePAAAD0MVAAAMwHVQ
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 17:01:25 +0000
Message-ID: <f93759bf2db6477ead6076286715447f@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <381e3937e0054984812ea69de97c7659@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180608.110205.217184993423575402.mbj@tail-f.com> <9f987f8f571e4a499c589f4be02c0407@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180608.162233.994500338881044294.mbj@tail-f.com> <acfc0df721cb475d9b1c829d1f7f5dd7@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <A58C7A8F-B926-4417-8080-685C0DB5E040@juniper.net> <b44492127969401f8b72f2e3dd67d58e@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <4A685312-E065-4DF6-9BB1-BCC52947F1CA@juniper.net> <20180613060216.kicdlastkq4yhmzo@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
In-Reply-To: <20180613060216.kicdlastkq4yhmzo@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
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: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/bseG8tKSI_bg9bRP2xOUx-6Noao>
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, 13 Jun 2018 17:01:39 -0000

Hi Juergen,

> From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, June 13, 2018 2:02 AM
> 
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 10:45:16PM +0000, Kent Watsen wrote:
> >
> > I'm okay with separation.  On one hand, it seems like common English,
> > but it might be good to have it well-defined in this draft.  Still it
> > seems that the definition could be improved, maybe by contrasting it to an
> event?
> > One is the what happened, the other a record about what happened...
> >
> 
> Regarding terminology:
> 
>    Configured subscription: A subscription installed via configuration
>    into a configuration datastore.
> 
> OK
> 
>    Dynamic subscription: A subscription agreed between subscriber and
>    publisher created via an "establish-subscription" RPC.
> 
> Try to define what it is, avoiding tying it into a specific RPC.

How about:

Dynamic subscription: A subscription agreed between subscriber and publisher as driven by an RPC request originating from the subscriber.

>    Event record: A set of information detailing an event.
> 
>    Event stream: A continuous, chronologically ordered set of events
>    aggregated under some context.
> 
>    Notification message: Information intended for a receiver indicating
>    that one or more event(s) have occurred.
> 
> RFC 7950 does not define 'notification' in the terminology section (it probably
> should). But RFC 6241 has this definition:
> 
>    o  notification: A server-initiated message indicating that a certain
>       event has been recognized by the server.
> 
> So how do 'event record' and 'notification' relate to each other? 

The mail:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg14684.html 
which I just sent contains my view of the interplay between 'event-record', <notification>, and other terms.  It is probably better if I don't replicate the full info from that email here just so that we don't fork the discussions. But I will comment on each of your specific questions:

> Are RFC 6241 notifications the same as notifications defined here?

While it doesn't explicitly say it, my reading of RFC-6241 Figure 1 says that RFC-6271 notifications correspond 1:1 with the RFC-5277 <notification>.  With this reading, an RFC-6241 notification is absolutely a valid "notification message".  However over time there may be new forms of "notification message" which are not of type <notification>.  For example, with draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages, we will have a form of "notification message" which can support the bundling of multiple event records.  The result is we need a term which can expand beyond <notification>.

>  If so, why not use a
> common definition? (It seems RFC 5277 likes to talk about 'event notifications'
> - so we even have a third term for what may be the
> same.)

Regarding RFC-5277 "event notification".  Actually the term "event notification" is not formally defined in RFC-5277.  Instead the closest definition comes in Section 2.2.1., where "event notification" is equated to <notification>.  So these two seemingly equivalent terms come from that single document.  And I didn't want to perpetuate the "event notification" term knowing that the underlying definition seems to preclude the bundling of events.  

Thanks,
Eric

 
> /js
> 
> --
> Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>