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

Hi Andy,

Thanks Mahesh for the clarification from the chairs perspective.

And here is my clarification from the co-author perspective.
We implemented the previous solution, and contributed it to IETF.
But we dropped the solution because no customer has interest about this at that time. I do not want to waste the WG time.

We restart the draft because now several operators and customers have real requirements and use cases, and would like to work on this solution.
We reconstructed the solution with inputs, and would like to implement it to align with the changes.
We would also like to share and contribute to the community.

Cheers,
Tianran

From: netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mahesh Jethanandani
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 5:47 AM
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif

Hi Andy,

On Aug 10, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to understand the NETCONF WG plan for UDP transport of notifications.

The WG was developing a UDP draft already I think, and it was dropped.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-05

In IETF 103, there was extensive discussion on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel, with questions raised about the scope of the draft. In IETF 105 and 106, our guidance (see meeting minutes) was to repurpose the draft for a UDP notification channel, which the WG would then ultimately adopt. This draft satisfies that request. To clarify this further, the datatracker marks the new draft as a replacement for the draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel.

Mahesh & Kent (as co-chair)

Since the WG dropped this problem and work item already, why should it reverse that decision
and start over with a new solution?

Andy

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen..net<mailto:kent%2Bietf@watsen.net>> wrote:
NETCONF WG,

Per the previous email sent moments ago, the chairs would like to solicit input on the following draft:

   Title: UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
   Link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
   Abstract:

      This document describes an UDP-based notification mechanism to
      collect data from networking devices.  A shim header is proposed to
      facilitate the streaming of data directly from line cards to a
      collector.  The objective is to rely on a lightweight approach to
      allow for higher frequency and better transit performance compared to
      already established notification mechanisms.

In particular, please discuss adoption-suitability as it regards to the following questions:

    1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
    2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

PS: this message is itself not an adoption poll, but rather an attempt to gauge interest/support for a potential future adoption poll.

NETCONF Chairs

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf