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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Tue, 19 June 2018 23:33 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.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 89050130FEC for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:33:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 BqchJsjDrm9C for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FB1A130E4B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 16:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2624; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1529451208; x=1530660808; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=dj3772m+hQvc22WbGQKn0csw/dEuGfH5AUZ/TRSPo7M=; b=SdBm/o5T0iY8j5SzlsGJdnSphETLIOkeFec77WmEMQbx4md1RtpMR1IC Zj+lVl+7Tn4TI3nk6Xx6pafR6+28qjjp//R7LCvWKk8rmTZS1Kqk6xnjt Ax+51fTGbyKnT0QnDsFaoda886tyjVCFbzkziuA0pxm6k/YkuESlk/DH5 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0CrAACWkSlb/4QNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJgWEyg2+IBIxTggCUe4F4C4RsAheCVyE0GAECAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAm0ohSgBAQEBAgEjEUMHCwIBCA4HBQImAgICMBUQAgQBGoUVCKsdghyDewG?= =?us-ascii?q?ETm2BC4dJgVQ/gQ+DDId2glUCmR8JAo8FgUeLfodyiToCERMBgSQdOIFScBW?= =?us-ascii?q?Cf5AYATWMIoEaAQE?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,245,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="131993332"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jun 2018 23:33:27 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (xch-rtp-011.cisco.com [64.101.220.151]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5JNXRxP008700 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:33:27 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-011.cisco.com (64.101.220.151) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:33:26 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 19 Jun 2018 19:33:26 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "alexander.clemm@huawei.com" <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
Thread-Index: AQHT/nTB7wTodISdV0qlE/sux4czBKRU8kawgAFinID///zC4IAAXMiA//++zTCABv5KgP//v8BQAAsePAAAAeTiAAAPiUWAAAIQEmAAKpK66wAP4zmQAA4QCIAAGLjSgAADVwtwAOZS1gAABZBdwA==
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:33:26 +0000
Message-ID: <03a8630197c04815a3aa6d85d667f678@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <20180613160206.gkutjhxigdxpv2uz@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20180614.102216.2199378020340361225.mbj@tail-f.com> <f6f66d0c0a444f2bb0fc770082450037@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180614.203959.786029239464099510.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180615062751.obzdeco6oka3ekue@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <ac1a7a7480da46d4841fcd1bd0ea4ddc@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <A0ECF1FF-FF88-4BE3-A722-D681B9CF6F78@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <A0ECF1FF-FF88-4BE3-A722-D681B9CF6F78@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/ge6q0erVIjtcZiZOf4-GQdy97tk>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing 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, 19 Jun 2018 23:33:32 -0000

> 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
>