Re: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13

Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com> Mon, 15 October 2018 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <bill.wu@huawei.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 9287C129619 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 oXgqwlOhJogH for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:59:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7191286E3 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CE361C36102C0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:59:23 +0100 (IST)
Received: from NKGEML414-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.75) by LHREML710-CAH.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:59:24 +0100
Received: from NKGEML513-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.10]) by nkgeml414-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.75]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:59:19 +0800
From: Qin Wu <bill.wu@huawei.com>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13
Thread-Index: AQHUXC8cbkWCNEfz8kWboGz592BIZKUXtPCAgAB9oICAARuu4IACUh+AgAQLY1A=
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 02:59:19 +0000
Message-ID: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B096746@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <B8F9A780D330094D99AF023C5877DABA9B064C67@nkgeml513-mbx.china.huawei.com> <100b013b42b747d4a46b77f608b4d012@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <100b013b42b747d4a46b77f608b4d012@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.138.33.244]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/k0JdrTeQJXJOts6d6WAc2JI-2ek>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 02:59:32 -0000

Hi,
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Eric Voit (evoit) [mailto:evoit@cisco.com] 
发送时间: 2018年10月13日 5:06
收件人: Qin Wu; netconf@ietf.org
主题: RE: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13

Hi Qin,

Thanks very much for your review.  Some thoughts in-line...

> From: Qin Wu, October 10, 2018 9:45 PM
> 
> Hi:
> I have read the latest version of netconf event notification and 
> believe it is ready for publication, here is a few comments:
> 1. Section 5
> The first sentence in paragraph 1 discuss how to encode notification 
> messages over NETCONF protocol, but it is not clear how to encode 
> notification messages transported over RESTCONF protocol? additional text to clarify?

RESTCONF requirements would seem a cleaner fit for draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif, which is also currently under WGLC.
 
[Qin]: Okay, forgot this when I review both drafts under WGLC,:-).
> For second paragraph, I think we should emphasize all notifications 
> and RPC are carried in the same session, how about the following proprosed text:
> "
> For dynamic subscriptions, all notification messages MUST be sent in a 
> same NETCONF transport session used by the "establish-subscription" RPC.
> "

I agree with your desire to clarify and simplify.  And proposed text above does appearing two paragraphs below in Section 6.

However the kill-subscription RPC likely will not come from the same NETCONF transport session.  So we cannot fully generalize/simplify.  Let me know if there is some other approach you would like, or whether this is ok.

[Qin]: I think subscribed subscription draft has clarified kill-subscription can end a dynamic subscription which is not associated with the transport
session used for other RPCs in section 2.4.5.
I think my proposed text didn't ask all notifications and all RPCs to be carried in the same NETCONF session, it looks safe to me to accept the proposed text, :-)
but I like to leave the decision to you.

> 2. Section 7, paragraph 2 and paragraph 2, the 1st bullet:
> Why JSON encoding is underlined? Why is limited to XML encoding?

Per another thread, mention of JSON in this draft is removed.  I don't think that we have a full set of IETF standards which document JSON + NETCONF.  
  
> 3.Section 7 paragraph 2, the 1st bullet:
>       "In case of error responses to an "establish-subscription" or
>       "modify-subscription" request there is the option of including an
>       "error-info" node."
> 
> Where "error-info" node is included? <rpc-error> element?

Good catch.  The text "each error identity..." really is part of the previous bullet.  I will move the text up to make that obvious.  That makes the "error-info" bullet an obvious part of the previous list.

[Qin]: Good.

> "  The yang-data included within "error-info" SHOULD NOT include the
>       optional leaf "error-reason", as such a leaf would be redundant
>       with information that is already placed within the
>       "error-app-tag".
> "
> 
> 
> where yang-data included in "error-info" defined? I only see something 
> similar defined in RFC8040 for error-info.

I have updated the document to show that the yang-data structures come from: ietf-subscribed-notifications and ietf-yang-push.

[Qin]: Thanks, make sense to me.

Thanks again,

Eric

> -Qin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf