Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

> From: Kent Watsen, June 19, 2018 5:58 PM
> 
> > > > > An event record is not necessarily a YANG notification, as the
> > > > > event record's payload might not be driven by the result of a
> > > > > YANG statement.
> > > >
> > > > I don't get this.  Can you give an example of when an event record
> > > > is not defined as a YANG "notification"?
> > >
> > > Why do we care about non-YANG-defined notification messages? How are
> > > systems expected to interoperate on such opaque data blobs?
> >
> > Opaque data blobs is what RFC-5277 can carry.  The WG asked to update
> > RFC-5277 using the improved control plane of YANG-Push.  This is what
> > makes up the documents in LC.
> >
> > <snip/>
> >
> > The drafts in LC adds RPC / signaling mechanisms.  The opaque data blobs are
> not in scope.
> 
> RFC 5277 may have allowed opaque data blocks, but I think that we should try
> to bury that support now.  Can this document say that all notifications MUST
> be defined by a YANG-defined "notification" statement?  Could this break in
> compatibility be advertised somehow?

I had always seen as subscribed-notifications as a control plane improvement to RFC-5277.   Explicitly excluding XSD, SYSLOG, vendor structures, etc. seems unnecessary.   

I can ping a few people who have legacy implementations which might be closer to this than I.   Narrowing the scope in this way should be broadly discussed.

> > It would be helpful to get some comments on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-
> messages.
> > This draft address improvements to the opaque data blobs.
> 
> Perhaps tease us with a little more detail?  ;)

Pretty much all the common headers in Section 3 and the message bundling in Section 4 are both improvements which are relevant to this thread. Tianran likely will have some new headers he wants added as part of the multi-line card work.

Eric

> Kent
>