Re: [netconf] netconf-https-notif-draft HTTP "pipelining"

Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> Mon, 25 January 2021 07:39 UTC

Return-Path: <hrogge@gmail.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 831803A0BE9 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:39:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.802
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 hs2gL74-Ik3o for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:39:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22e.google.com (mail-lj1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C9D8A3A0BDB for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:39:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f2so8884101ljp.11 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:39:19 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ysHK8pxAtpR5Yr8FVKn20zESuzR56CJW7aZF79M5Yvk=; b=HNUzqOBKVh4O4F7GfysWPYxMCMLsZmQ/0tIqZbyNHqlnfnkti9R2Hc3UepjnkEx8z1 GV/c2hFXu60CiFyiXZ36/X0ok5WsJHTpliBVgFr6D7W+RAUpoWWE3Fg7yN0KN1TG/Sak PB37W0ajYZsscfpFpPqtFZbE+KTZDXiF6DpUt75KPtBELdP5SvnW2CnFb+nKOzhG1A3f p8zpaTpJ50o57UwW1xfA+/gMESTZMV3DqxoC9RnFDCiElBnJWkbu2zEiwIK+Ii/JoNos ZFCGhtkmulSxphKZ4zVqhAf/3DOErcsAC7j6kJBI5hZ7D80RLUV9O3R6otVCotKCcSKB 0+RA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ysHK8pxAtpR5Yr8FVKn20zESuzR56CJW7aZF79M5Yvk=; b=Y08F0yVb2zXuHMkAOkUNIEZBzz1dEbLoQ4TyiOr2odWalI7632r9Jj9bAo9WCZnzme rUeRZVjl8nCPfI+c8p3GqaB5J3B/fzOQ9hkVRHUGB7nO2VLxC9Jssjl5RRea0/8QdLzM zI+lw+TBn4tK+4cGfvo2o32a1pbZdr71GFDFjyboqqI1NGvJ6nkeKun+X+q8xJitBd/B 0nlGE61Fx3KRfVKfbyNhA2Emzh1l8iAKsB7roGzThn1+o3/X/QjZPTHzBsP8R+ioeTZx N0x2j6RtkH55Jg19O96kHEeUHUkF5A1nAF8Ui8B8/uFQVYq30DtNh6H2Lftrb5CF9z/k T/wA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533x97fHqL3/dr5TnYuoaOrbMJiWwnczhr9tmNZeYYsE5cdHzzR4 uZql1kkI+cKfhSeUy4MKk1Wvj2LKGKvZuXvu7+4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy8AVAiSveyj+D9WX89SGnJiVAyJ/SS5mAN+lIk5Mi9HdVFiSnCue2xd3EI+GozQjgNinZXdvENJ3v0xjnI5dE=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:b88b:: with SMTP id r11mr209914ljp.187.1611560357661; Sun, 24 Jan 2021 23:39:17 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGnRvuqe9iAbkgxak7m8c4UDGEVjmDif0ri5MpeQDm3KcG0viA@mail.gmail.com> <FA4A4A76-817B-4E07-BA5C-614BD76398ED@gmail.com> <43B054E1-8834-4178-985F-DB2660E4BAE0@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <43B054E1-8834-4178-985F-DB2660E4BAE0@yahoo.com>
From: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:38:51 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGnRvurHbsydCJ34GuTW45i4OhhBoRcrH4v6VKA-Mjw98+NtNg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com>
Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/eDU2r0SJNNrFfOBhmCfWKKNrnps>
Subject: Re: [netconf] netconf-https-notif-draft HTTP "pipelining"
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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 07:39:21 -0000

Hi,

The problem I see with the "bundled messages" method is that it seems
to transmit the URL once... which contains an important part of the
Restconf Semantics... that feels like a strange restriction and
something easy to get wrong.

Henning

On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 8:47 PM Reshad Rahman <reshad@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Mahesh,
>
>
>
> Since draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages is in parked state, and expired 8 months ago, should the netconf-https-notif document be using bundled messages? But I don’t know the reason why it’s in parked state and whether it’ll be in drive mode soon.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Reshad.
>
>
>
> From: netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
> Date: Friday, January 22, 2021 at 2:08 PM
> To: Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com>
> Cc: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [netconf] netconf-https-notif-draft HTTP "pipelining"
>
>
>
> Hi Henning,
>
>
>
> The draft was trying to address the question of “pipelining” using two methods. One is the equivalent of “HTTP 1.1 pipelining” and the other is concept of “bundled-messages” introduced by draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages. In the process it mixed both of them, and thus the contradiction in the example in section 1.5.1.
>
>
>
> Let me update the document to fix the example(s), at which point the WG can decide if they want to support one or both the methods.
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2021, at 11:29 PM, Henning Rogge <hrogge@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I had a longer discussion with Kent Watsen yesterday and he asked me
> to get the questions about the netconf-https-notif-draft to the
> mailing list:
>
> In section 1.5.1 the draft talks about "pipelining" of messages. Is
> this meant equivalent to "HTTP 1.1 pipelining" or is this just a
> technique unique to the draft? If this is not something reused from
> HTTP, maybe there should be some advice on how this interacts with
> normal HTTP server/client code.
>
> Also the example in 1.5.1 seems to contradict each other.
>
> The overview (page 5) shows the Publisher sending HTTPS POST message
> once for each notification (which I think is important because the URL
> is part of the context of the message)... but the content description
> (page 6) does only show a single POST with multiple responses. Same is
> true for chapter 8.3.
>
> Henning Rogge
>
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani
>
> mjethanandani@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ netconf mailing list netconf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf