IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Bulk <rpc-reply>

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Tue, 03 March 2020 20:57 UTC

Return-Path: <01000170a2300554-1c8c8416-1a58-4689-a021-471e777a0544-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 36B333A0971 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 12:57:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 MEPVz1x5n9yl for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 12:57:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a48-110.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a48-110.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.48.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B4F123A0974 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Mar 2020 12:57:02 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=6gbrjpgwjskckoa6a5zn6fwqkn67xbtw; d=amazonses.com; t=1583269021; h=From:Message-Id:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References:Feedback-ID; bh=pl5BHwYhv90+SmgYHnag+T2VcC4s8Cb74krWTSJchy4=; b=QMV7bJFVWCtRbAyZbfrRkBLM6kSSnzru61yFNm1fWCcL7SKur1cNk4iWb2LSz24W y8B7Lw2Xw5pV1qHWwie7QuWKpEsJEiQ+Nafyfsg54RyO1vaaLoOyLyG6Y/HmbXLrL3b kGt0qF3gsafLVSmfLqkaxEq5f5Q1HexI7OgvQYrw=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Message-ID: <01000170a2300554-1c8c8416-1a58-4689-a021-471e777a0544-000000@email.amazonses.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_6FBAE9B9-3F43-4776-8CAB-9008508C640F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 20:57:01 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CACpTNnZH-whG0QrOSvfP3O2jNN-AcYUtUNk7mizimkVrwbUsSA@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
To: aruna potti <arunapotti@gmail.com>
References: <CACpTNnZ1UeihokYrhP2Gtb18j_DYq9tSDrt8pAzn_9yF4n_OOg@mail.gmail.com> <CACpTNnZH-whG0QrOSvfP3O2jNN-AcYUtUNk7mizimkVrwbUsSA@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.03.03-54.240.48.110
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/c8VxiO2quGhXNXwy7IWBYFAIju4>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Bulk <rpc-reply>
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Tue, 03 Mar 2020 20:57:05 -0000

Hi Aruna,

The issue raised by that draft remains open.  IIRC, more important ongoing activities the time shut it out.  It is potentially something the WG might want to consider again...

For returning large collections (e.g., routes, interfaces stats, etc.), the restconf-collection draft might’ve provided some relief: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-collection-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-collection-00>.

Kent


> On Mar 3, 2020, at 11:14 AM, aruna potti <arunapotti@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> A gentle reminder of my question!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 12:19 PM aruna potti <arunapotti@gmail.com <mailto:arunapotti@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Is there any conclusion on the proposals mentioned below?
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-liu-netconf-multiple-replies-01.html <https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-liu-netconf-multiple-replies-01.html>
> 
> I am especially interested in how clients can deal with bulk <rpc-reply> as they can not wait forever for a response and usually require to have time out for a response from the device. I see an issue to increase the time out as it can interfere with the network communication issue detection while waiting for the response. 
> What is your suggestion on how a client should handle the bulk <rpc-reply>?
> 
> Thanks,
> Aruna. 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email