[netconf] Bulk <rpc-reply>
aruna potti <arunapotti@gmail.com> Mon, 10 February 2020 20:16 UTC
Return-Path: <arunapotti@gmail.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 9B79E120827 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:16:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 KOaUjZhEPzkg for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x52c.google.com (mail-ed1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FB43120018 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:16:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id c26so1878643eds.8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:16:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=W1ycfpVUhR1D+CTSAfBQKYIfpJgWTwTWpJ7au4SfktE=; b=d0R/8JjtuK6VTNYwFq6Ep/U9dCGWs7zwJQLTKVy/KajgLnCF3zYgMR80u//Qkt+MBZ Wy+H+O/USSpxK2G3G0EWNOO938V1rmKY4W5WY7OTCOBpQ1ARxUr9KNXmw624qZH9Cw6E EHBorTPwdDMfaVdJ+aqZ99jmwmhfkKg9VAq5R7ovOQV8ulJ6K2W9N+HFVRZS7cRswHcm Uoqk2XVXhWmrYhHM80iZgDuYP2ERAbXj7kmI9E1RFEmpmIkRKZrNczI/ZE81k0v2qUfe j7BRdmheZ85TivRwtvclPf1KS87ueAfv47vkkTizKGg4hn/z10J6yt/w22uHtgnAiPh5 SGhA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=W1ycfpVUhR1D+CTSAfBQKYIfpJgWTwTWpJ7au4SfktE=; b=eww6qko8mRCeNEhhi5tOJvpC6rc6CEaIqmxoNPKU33QyIRJ1OO1hyAkIrjaFk0w0DZ HazxJfUl1Y3/MKH2m/zOnXG4g7rbdJpdPduSVgPkGjitmoWY+EwJWW0j+jXKxQ+Tt13U bdpw0b5jBqtgzx6bAXbclrCuIRo5xfUS6p3NH0XGsfFF4dVxI2AS2JLrXMpUkMAYHS0x evSQhBf5N5mf/Ovp2FNj+RYCgAAYNaTUcqYoaCionDJb12MqgSyDcb9yLJDPsJAmnOM0 xQYtLCTviQcvMqx4hNnLXXRZWN+7iUIK8jJqnu50R1liqqdiLAgzlXTgZ9ULsmPZpOd1 bv/A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXul5URZ4k2UG69P24yqR+z9jHbm/qlD/oje14gSFDEdKFFEL+0 Vz8Ssa67qMat+XBzCEu1B/Xk+r/E7qIasQeHpvj2KmlL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqygkr6e4Adcet9eh3UxwGCQvQGWzyX0eXlOCVCRtfXK73Ji2v9qSkU973muhttvcxLhgTF+Fo65uzcqsqddSjQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1c87:: with SMTP id cy7mr2851772edb.348.1581365815835; Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:16:55 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: aruna potti <arunapotti@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 12:19:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CACpTNnZ1UeihokYrhP2Gtb18j_DYq9tSDrt8pAzn_9yF4n_OOg@mail.gmail.com>
To: netconf@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b67ddf059e3e6b2b"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/hpQT_Z1okwENIaDi9mEinwYyPz8>
Subject: [netconf] Bulk <rpc-reply>
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: Mon, 10 Feb 2020 20:16:59 -0000
Hi, Is there any conclusion on the proposals mentioned below? https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-liu-netconf-multiple-replies-01.html I am especially interested in how clients can deal with bulk <rpc-reply> as they can not wait forever for a response and usually require to have time out for a response from the device. I see an issue to increase the time out as it can interfere with the network communication issue detection while waiting for the response. What is your suggestion on how a client should handle the bulk <rpc-reply>? Thanks, Aruna.
- [netconf] Bulk <rpc-reply> aruna potti
- Re: [netconf] Bulk <rpc-reply> aruna potti
- Re: [netconf] Bulk <rpc-reply> Kent Watsen