Re: [Netconf] two-week review of drafts related to notifications and subscriptions

+1 on Eric's comments.

I believe going to WGLC with the "vertical slice" that includes YANG-Push as well as subscribed notifications is the preferable option.  Several reasons:

- You mention that subscribed-notifications with its new revision will be in range for WGLC, and YANG-Push has had less areas of contention and is deemed in good overall shape, as also commented on this list.  I believe that this is clearly ready.  
- Industry activity has been asking for YANG-Push for some time.  I do not think anything would be gained from incurring further delay; IMHO it will not make the solution substantially better, only erode momentum of IETF solution.  
- and historically they have been a bundle anyway - subscribed-notifications was "broken out" from YANG-Push at some point to generalize the solution

Thanks
--- Alex

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Eric Voit
> (evoit)
> Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 9:44 AM
> To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>; netconf@ietf.org
> Cc: Mahesh Jethanandani (mahesh) <mahesh@cisco.com>
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] two-week review of drafts related to notifications and
> subscriptions
> 
> Hi Kent,
> Hi Mahesh,
> 
> > From: Netconf, October 23, 2017 7:01 PM
> >
> > Thank you to all those who participated in the review of the drafts
> > related to event notifications.  Recall that our interest was to get a
> > heartbeat from the working group regarding the readiness of these drafts
> to progress to Last Call.
> > As we see it, most of the discussion centered on the
> > subscribed-notifications draft, and we're optimistic that the next
> > update of that draft could be in shooting distance to a Last Call.
> > Assuming that is true, would it make sense to do that, or should we
> > look at including other drafts in a combo Last Call.  We understand
> > that there is an interest to take a vertical slice (yang-push,
> > subscribed-notifications, and netconf-notif) to Last Call together,
> > but maybe it would make more sense to do subscribed-notifications,
> > netconf-notif, and restconf-notif together, as the latter two drafts provide
> the instance examples for the first draft.
> 
> From my perspective, the vertical slice makes more sense:
> - YANG subscriptions has more industry activity, and early implementations
> needing interoperability guidance
> - YANG-Push defines a notification which places the subscription-id within
> the notification message (something you don't get right away with
> subscribed-notifications).  This makes is more useful.
> - the instance examples in the transport drafts also include examples of
> yang-push subscriptions (i.e., the horizontal slice also has vertical elements).
> - restconf-notif's HTTP2 configured subscriptions are less complex if they use
> only the new notification message format
> 
> Eric
> 
> > What are your thoughts?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kent and Mahesh
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > We’d like to direct the WG attention to the set of drafts related to
> > notifications and subscriptions, with the goal of getting a pulse on
> > if the WG thinks they are ready to progress now.
> >
> > To enable you get an overview and to see how the documents relate to
> > each other, this draft is a good place to start:
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voit-
> > netconf-subscription-and-notif-overview-00.
> >
> > The drafts related to this review are:
> >
> >    -  draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications
> >    -  draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push
> >    -  draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications
> >    -  draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif
> >    -  draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages
> >
> > While this is not an official WGLC, we will issue one if the response is
> positive.
> > Please provide comments within two weeks.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mahesh and Kent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-
> >
> 3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwIGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuh
> r6
> > Scbfh0UjBXeMK-
> >
> ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m
> =6
> > EmQf9DJN6gYrH_xCp3oiMMsgNpXCh7lN3VAHxwuG-
> > 4&s=vrMmzT7gkE3A2xzCWX5U8WjjxlRtLR137nXwhyPqO3Q&e=
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf