Re: [Netconf] RFC 8030 on Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push

[Andy Bierman <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I could have also answered that RFC 8030 is a proxy caching protocol
> optimized for intermittent/ low-power connectivity to smartphones.
>
>
>
> It would be difficult to retrofit to this environment.  I would be
> intrigued to see the result if someone attempted this.
>
>
>
You are probably right.
I don't want to imply I support this approach for  NETCONF and RESTCONF.


Eric
>

Andy


>
>
> *From:* Andy Bierman, December 8, 2016 5:28 PM
>
> On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 12:41 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the pointer Juergen,
>
> The RFC does support common functional requirements such as:
> - DDoS protection method for HTTP2
> - Prioritized messages
> - many subscriptions per transport session
> - others
>
> But there were several reasons it doesn't match sufficiently for reuse
> with yang data stores.  Some deltas between the environments include:
> - Push Service as a Subscriber proxy, with caching and possible push
> update aggregation (intended to save radio power)
> - multiple resource targets within a single subscription
> - configured subscription support
> - content/event filtering
> - yang
> - event dampening, on-change, and periodic
> - Use of GET to subscription resource (GRPC compatibility)
> - negotiation
>
> Therefore I see this as a useful reference and context rather than
> something normative that we can build upon.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't agree that all these things are needed or they cannot be done as
> part of the application.
>
> Not sure what YANG support means either.  This does not seem to affect the
> bytes on the wire.
>
>
>
> I prefer to separate the protocol layers.  The part that selects what
> events to send and
>
> other optimizations related to content selection should not be coupled to
> how notifications
>
> are delivered.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> We shouldn't forget this though as there are also items we might want to
> adopt at some future point:
> - the Subscriber proxy model
> - push update TTL
> - tracked acknowledgement of push updates
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> > From: Juergen Schoenwaelder, December 8, 2016 11:49 AM
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > this may be relevant for some of the discussions here.
> >
> > /js
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 08:42:03AM -0800, [e-mail]
> wrote:
> > > A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
> > >
> > >
> > >         RFC 8030
> > >
> > >         Title:      Generic Event Delivery Using HTTP Push
> > >         Author:     M. Thomson,
> > >                     E. Damaggio,
> > >                     B. Raymor, Ed.
> > >         Status:     Standards Track
> > >         Stream:     IETF
> > >         Date:       December 2016
> > >         Mailbox:    [e-mail],
> > >                     [e-mail],
> > >                     [e-mail]
> > >         Pages:      31
> > >         Characters: 68069
> > >         Updates/Obsoletes/SeeAlso:   None
> > >
> > >         I-D Tag:    draft-ietf-webpush-protocol-12.txt
> > >
> > >         URL:        https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8030
> > >
> > >         DOI:        10.17487/RFC8030
> > >
> > > This document describes a simple protocol for the delivery of real-
> > > time events to user agents.  This scheme uses HTTP/2 server push.
> > >
> > > This document is a product of the Web-Based Push Notifications Working
> > Group of the IETF.
> > >
> > > This is now a Proposed Standard.
> > >
> > > STANDARDS TRACK: This document specifies an Internet Standards Track
> > > protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and
> > > suggestions for improvements.  Please refer to the current edition of
> > > the Official Internet Protocol Standards
> > > (https://www.rfc-editor.org/standards) for the standardization state
> > > and status of this protocol.  Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
> > >
> > > This announcement is sent to the IETF-Announce and rfc-dist lists.
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe, see
> > >   https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
> > >   https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-dist
> > >
> > > For searching the RFC series, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/search
> > > For downloading RFCs, see https://www.rfc-editor.org/retrieve/bulk
> > >
> > > Requests for special distribution should be addressed to either the
> > > author of the RFC in question, or to [e-mail].
> > > Unless specifically noted otherwise on the RFC itself, all RFCs are
> > > for unlimited distribution.
> > >
> > >
> > > The RFC Editor Team
> > > Association Management Solutions, LLC
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
> > Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
> > Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>
>
>