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

Kent Watsen <> Fri, 07 August 2020 20:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D8943A091B for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zdOtu9cUjvhr for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71BEE3A09F6 for <>; Fri, 7 Aug 2020 13:16:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono;; 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 <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0F9ECAA7-2D62-4544-BC3B-CA1D6A9C9180"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2020 20:16:00 +0000
References: <>
To: "" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
X-SES-Outgoing: 2020.08.07-
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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.