Re: [netconf] configuring multi-channels

[Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 4:28 PM
> To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: configuring multi-channels
> 
> Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:14 PM
> > > To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
> > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > Subject: Re: configuring multi-channels
> > >
> > > Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > In this document, we defined two types of publication channels:
> > > >    Master Publication Channel: the session between the Master Publisher
> > > >    and the Receiver.
> > > >    Agent Publication Channel: the session between the Agent Publisher
> > > >    and the Receiver
> > > >
> > > > Do you think it's enough or anything you think should be clarified?
> > >
> > > These are just names.  But why does these names imply that the
> > > client has to configure anything?
> >
> > Several kinds of transport protocol can be used to carry data between
> > the publisher and the receiver. UDP based, TCP based.
> > Transport like https-notif need client-server configuration.
> > That is to say the configuration is about the transport like in
> > draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00.
> 
> With the POST-based HTTP protocol in draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif, why
> can't the agent publisher simply POST to the receiver?  It is probably useful
> if the *server* can indicate to the client that this will/may happen, but
> I don't understand why the client needs to configure anything special.

I agree with you. My understanding to draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif is that the configuration is on the *server* side.
The configuration need to indicate both client and server information. For example:
   module: ietf-https-notif
     +--rw receivers
        +--rw receiver* [name]
           +--rw name           string
           +--rw tcp-params
           |  +--rw remote-address    inet:host
           |  +--rw remote-port?      inet:port-number
           |  +--rw local-address?    inet:ip-address
           |  +--rw local-port?       inet:port-number
           |  +--rw keepalives!

Include both remote and local IP.

I am sorry, could you point out if there is any that mislead you. :-) 

Best,
Tianran


> /martin
> 
> 
> >
> > Tianran
> >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Tianran
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 2:36 PM
> > > > > To: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>
> > > > > Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> > > > > Subject: Re: configuring multi-channels
> > > > >
> > > > > Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Martin,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The channel is concept is from
> > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhou-netconf-multi-stre
> > > > > > am-o rigi nators/ There are multiple publication channels per
> > > > > > device/subscription.
> > > > >
> > > > > In that document, the word "channel" is present three times +
> > > > > one
> > > > > (broken) XML example.  The concept of a channel needs to be
> > > > > explained in detail so that we can have a meaningful discussion.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > /martin
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > It should be better if the client is not aware of the channels.
> > > > > > These can be achieved by using the UDP based publication
> > > > > > channel as
> > > in:
> > > > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-ch
> > > > > > anne l/ The publishers can use the same IP as the subscription
> > > > > > channel, and use dynamic ports. So no per channel
> > > > > > configurations need.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For https-notif, we can consider to pre-configure all the
> > > > > > possible/potential publication channels.
> > > > > > But the usage of which
> > > > > > channels is decided by the device dynamically during the run time.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Tianran
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Martin Bjorklund [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2019 3:27 AM
> > > > > > > To: [e-mail]
> > > > > > > Cc: Tianran Zhou <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption Call for
> > > > > > > draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Kent Watsen <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi Tianran,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Considering the multiple stream originator case, I would
> > > > > > > > > suggest this
> > > > > > > https-notif to add a channel level configuration.
> > > > > > > > > i.e.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > +--receivers
> > > > > > > > >    +--receiver
> > > > > > > > >       +--channels
> > > > > > > > >          +--channel
> > > > > > > > >             +--here put the http client server
> > > > > > > > > configurations
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is compatible with the single originator case with
> > > > > > > > > only one channel
> > > > > > > configuration.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We can look at this.  Maybe use a choice statement between
> > > > > > > > the two
> > > > > options...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think this is a good idea.  But then I don't really
> > > > > > > understand the 'channel' concept.  I don't understand why
> > > > > > > the client needs to be aware of these channels, but this
> > > > > > > should probably be discussed
> > > > > in a separate thread.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /martin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Kent // co-author
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you do not like this, I think existing https-notif
> > > > > > > > > model also
> > > works.
> > > > > > > > > i.e. each receiver configuration stands for one channel.
> > > > > > > > > But this is not clear IMO.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Best,
> > > > > > > > > Tianran
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >