Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

"" <> Wed, 12 August 2020 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E8D23A07DA for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <XlXbM5Xqm9d4>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.395
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XlXbM5Xqm9d4 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 36CCB3A07D2 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:44:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s201512; t=1597203866; bh=7WEDNEWWwnjq9qz1/9gnmwRDrBcNLBDgjKI7GZeK1t0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References; b=iWr6EdhpoRVWNRO6IzwD+dLN1EdySNcTkutPc526uL5epc/fjs59lko21WIjDRKKI sxUs3Ok7X2IOP8H05Y+xoSIoZYKVLkWSH3LU4F6AYzOe7HHaP2UHUcKsXZod0Zb0Bg xijixLWpamU+B4Ag/F3KyP5ikhj0DyHz8xTopebs=
Received: from cmcc-PC ([]) by (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id B181DE60; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:44:24 +0800
X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1597203864ts8yknw5d
Message-ID: <>
X-QQ-XMAILINFO: OUV5GVlfsRrx9G2FwVdC48axj079YGYXrd7VBY5IhRVPOSGqLwXXmJMCsbXFHO fgkB43PHTUiXwaOxiY3Z6xVO9WOL7P1+yZUmC3wARdD9S6A0rM40b3qZmWhIQ5vHISCVJBchhuto zYO10ZLXt2OQ+y5c7D11IoJmPQsLEMNSWS2NA5no4zlACStz3dNZLycjJD3HFGEsxrXRW5sWt8RH xcGz9+2OHT+Xh/vLFwpYVEJ4isauyrdq/k4+fdjcXu5D1GKqCDrcm22gckv7AuLpXscdRqXDGOO2 8W1ur8hRbeDDS2eV2qoqQiCgJSUfoDH1Hhgb3My6zPH6cXldMPEvUt0/ba7nIrFvEQexzBAvXOnz IFTeYifNH4TTWDX1xHBwwyB0aO9lfKw9Hx/xCMa9uk5xS3Qg8jYkpUSfJxmiNlj6iVh7ZYs7cDVD o63Sh+jbO+g00227J3zXeT/4jv2DfvmVLY32nbk2J3mBVnkXLmeoCYanDugIaVkNgZ6rnP1X868m 3+vW0qcKKskOyVt/gPNIX3IP+4un7EiwEPZ+LYyOckqelazUrsJyKZ5JLu5ycYzZNE15nPZRks5o wNBzkF+/paPFf2s6A2imb7LvG+76FHg3i00G1wnrD1hvksKNLEtloEMsHXSFs6qjH79hcYTQ+Pd4 Nj8yEcavz8wr8dwPjDN5CeRhG079E+To9+cJZGBu7zlyNKUJjPYFSJDFFj7pRJW4UkPXeaS5kY9T RhzzJvzggKkemcx5bhskqj+hTVWfYFVPOq
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:46:37 +0800
From: "" <>
To: "Kent Watsen" <>, "" <>
Cc: duzongpeng <>
References: <>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart554416480187_=----"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:44:38 -0000

Hi WG,
With regard to the 2 questions for this draft:
    1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
I think it’s valuable for the WG to solve. As mentioned in the other mail, for core devices with large amount of data to export,  distributed exporting mechanism could relieve the device work load.
Directly export from the line cards can avoid the bottle neck when exporting data from mainboard.
2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?
Yes. I’ve read this document and think it’s a good basis for the work. &
From: Kent Watsen
Date: 2020-08-06 06:14
Subject: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif

Per the previous email sent moments ago, the chairs would like to solicit input on the following draft: 

   Title: Subscription to Distributed Notifications 

      This documents describes extensions to the YANG notifications
      subscription to allow metrics being published directly from
      processors on line cards to target receivers, while subscription is
      still maintained at the route processor in a distributed forwarding

In particular, please discuss adoption-suitability as it regards to the following questions:

    1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
    2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

PS: this message is itself not an adoption poll, but rather an attempt to gauge interest/support for a potential future adoption poll.