Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> Fri, 07 August 2020 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <01000173ca90e445-85996493-cdee-40cc-b98b-83347f2c800c-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 5D8943A091B for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=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 zdOtu9cUjvhr for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from a8-33.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-33.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71BEE3A09F6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1596831360; h=From:Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:Date:References:To:In-Reply-To:Message-Id:Feedback-ID; bh=G3PIPxFa5hnkIn7l7VKaODv88irtcnfMypJr8TkVQ2E=; b=i3OSOZyG9OGeGTreCLU5cGh0Ed8x+dslfXTV0XKLJjXGmUnt8RPjM1Bgqn+Kh+4/ TAcP2cnHGeibRtgXaCmBNYQcKk4w2tIi1uIlfkEQ44sPefK3dsIIjcc4SL/FgXYfbiZ 2fMAIPryp8poZfheTFXj0cUQITaNJbyRWELSwe8k=
From: Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0F9ECAA7-2D62-4544-BC3B-CA1D6A9C9180"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:16:00 +0000
References: <01000173c0b07b33-ad0b793a-7afc-4b39-95f8-2f50574d57bb-000000@us-east-1.amazonses.com>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <01000173c0b07b33-ad0b793a-7afc-4b39-95f8-2f50574d57bb-000000@us-east-1.amazonses.com>
Message-ID: <01000173ca90e445-85996493-cdee-40cc-b98b-83347f2c800c-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.08.07-54.240.8.33
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/dRCNDmxlEc5vxKNubTfKdcgARBU>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
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: Fri, 07 Aug 2020 20:16:05 -0000

[as a contributor]


>     1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?

I believe that it is important to enable publishers to send notifications directly from line cards.   This belief is based on my experience from when at Juniper dealing with very high-end firewalls with enormous log output.

I believe that the NETCONF WG is the appropriate WG for this work, having defined RFC 8639 (SN), RFC 8640 (NN), and RFC 8650 (RN).


>     2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

I have read the current version of the draft and find it to be a reasonable start.

Presuming the ability to use a transport outside of SN, as described by http-motif, is maintained, it may be useful if this draft could describe how to do that also.  That said, if all equipment having a multiplicity of publisher-agents will uses SN, then this isn’t needed.  [Note: the “https-notif” draft’s intention is to enable simple implementations, e.g., no multiplicity of publisher-agents.]




3) regarding Juergen’s questions:

  a) I am willing to substantially review the drafts.
  b) I am willing to contribute to the discussion of any issue.
  c) I do NOT plan to implement the technology defined.



Kent