Re: [netconf] [netconf-wg/https-notif] Should the receivers container be moved under the augment statement and the leafref renamed? (#2)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 11 February 2020 13:25 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 B9C881200E7 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 05:25:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 1RKvKb1Cx9xM for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 05:25:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05A83120043 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 05:25:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [173.38.220.37]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EA36D1AE018B; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:25:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 14:24:56 +0100 (CET)
Message-Id: <20200211.142456.1627117725994673253.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: kent+ietf@watsen.net
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <0100016fa69f59c6-212e569d-fb2b-47cb-a1ff-e897829ba111-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <netconf-wg/https-notif/issues/2/555352822@github.com> <20191119.161851.678459934233941550.mbj@tail-f.com> <0100016fa69f59c6-212e569d-fb2b-47cb-a1ff-e897829ba111-000000@email.amazonses.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/g2loFgO5fb--ldF6Xvq8gwn70OI>
Subject: Re: [netconf] [netconf-wg/https-notif] Should the receivers container be moved under the augment statement and the leafref renamed? (#2)
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: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 13:25:45 -0000

Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen.net> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> 
> > On Nov 19, 2019, at 10:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> The reason to not move the receiver container under the augment is so
> >> as to allow the leafref to point to multiple receivers.
> > 
> > I don't understand this reason.
> 
> Each "receiver" (in https-notif) maps to an HTTPS connection from the
> publisher to the receiver.
> 
> There is likely to be more than one configured subscription, yet all
> notifications should go to the same receiver.
> 
> We'd like to use the same HTTPS "connection" for all, as opposed to
> having an HTTPS connection for each.
> 
> The "receiver-ref" leaf provides an indirection enabling this
> many-to-one relationship.

I can't find the original thread about this issue, so I'll rephrase
what I (think I) wrote from the start:

I understand the reason for the many-to-one, and I wish we had that in
the base model itself (i.e., RFC 8639), so that protocol-documents
didn't have to invent this, and so that we could have
receiver-specific config in one place.

> > Since this is not a stand-alone model, I think it should augment
> > /sn:subscriptions.  In some way it doesn't matter what nodes are
> > called and where they are located, but having descriptive names and
> > keep related nodes under common subtrees helps the understanding of
> > models.
> 
> Is s/receiver-ref/https-receiver-ref/ what you had in mind?

Yes, as a minimum.

I would also change the top-level container "receivers" to augment
/sn:subscriptions:

  augemnt /sn:subscriptions {
    container https-receivers {
      ...
    }
  }



/martin