IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] closure on dynamic model changes

"Jeffrey Ladouceur (jladouce)" <jladouce@cisco.com> Wed, 11 July 2018 21:58 UTC

Return-Path: <jladouce@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 6E7F0130ED9 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -12.521
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, HTTPS_HTTP_MISMATCH=1.989, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-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 1dtWIEr0vcSc for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 742D6130ECC for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 14:58:06 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=13094; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1531346286; x=1532555886; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: mime-version; bh=KetQ4UODWXgdi/VrS7gj9dTcEVhvjhoGbwpOymAXfzw=; b=kni0+A/sZY5PyiBSxLhiB308c/illqi9tKWX8Rd5QauEiHmNc5VKW9Ex wOo48X5zs5UDXz7BK/WWAcG/iwf/OPR9Q2diSvMOja3ybLHpR/IRf3lD+ O48LG2GKQdNmTyoXBweNbHGqwD5Fn+EgTKNBdglYQZDQaGnMbFt06TFaV Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DJAQAafEZb/4sNJK1cGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYJTdmN/KAqDcIFfklyBZySQJIUOgXoLIgqDekYCF4ImITYWAQIBAQIBAQJtHAyFNgEBAQEDIwo+HgIBCA4DAwECKAMCAgIwFAkIAgQBEoMgAYEbZA+qOoEuhFuFZQWIfoFXP4E3DIIwLoMZAgEBGIEmAQEINhaCSzGCJAKZVwkChgiJHY1hijiHMwIREwGBJCQNJIFScBVlAYI+gXWEDIUUhT5vAQEBgRKJHoEfAYEZAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,339,1526342400"; d="scan'208,217";a="422514415"
Received: from alln-core-6.cisco.com ([173.36.13.139]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 11 Jul 2018 21:58:05 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (xch-rtp-009.cisco.com [64.101.220.149]) by alln-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w6BLw5WU002431 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:58:05 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-007.cisco.com (64.101.220.147) by XCH-RTP-009.cisco.com (64.101.220.149) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:58:04 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-007.cisco.com ([64.101.220.147]) by XCH-RTP-007.cisco.com ([64.101.220.147]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 11 Jul 2018 17:58:04 -0400
From: "Jeffrey Ladouceur (jladouce)" <jladouce@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] closure on dynamic model changes
Thread-Index: AQHUGWDbLPbtZBdqVkidwW9feognvaSKkboA
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2018 21:58:04 +0000
Message-ID: <72E30569-5546-4165-B6EA-A424FB0B3C28@cisco.com>
References: <17CA1DAB-73FF-498D-8EA6-5BD090B9F01E@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <17CA1DAB-73FF-498D-8EA6-5BD090B9F01E@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [161.44.213.9]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_72E3056955464165B6EAA424FB0B3C28ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/eM-E6iSBVmxOfBs6CYyTu3NJ0Kc>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] closure on dynamic model changes
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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, 11 Jul 2018 21:58:10 -0000

Hi Kent,

The client can receive notification and can poll the checksum to determine if the module set has changed.

I’m also trying to determine if there was acceptance with regards to returning an error app tag of “capabilities-changed” when a client sends an RPC which could potentially no longer work as expected.

Regards,
Jeff



From: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>
Date: Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 5:48 PM
To: Jeffrey Ladouceur <jladouce@cisco.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] closure on dynamic model changes

Hi Jeff,

Both RFC 7895 and rfc7895bis (almost RFC 8407) define a checksum a client can poll, as well as a notification a client can receive, to determine when a server's module set has changed.

Kent


On 7/11/18, 5:34 PM, "Netconf on behalf of Jeffrey Ladouceur (jladouce)" <netconf-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of jladouce=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:jladouce=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:

Hello netconf experts,

I’m trying to determine if there was closure on the topic of dynamic model changes and the impact on any connected netconf clients.

The last message appears to be 8 years ago:

https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netconf/current/msg05982.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mail-2Darchive_web_netconf_current_msg05982.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK-ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m=Z5JgjQUnS4iOxPJ2YqJzFJTEW4Pyl-q8NHvml9iW0kc&s=YawnPBrkjAh6mZNBG8fY0VN0Rl8hqYwz_4uxbQc7zCE&e=>

Has there been any standards agreement since the above post or any other discussions ?

Kindest regards,
Jeff

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email