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

Qin Wu <> Mon, 15 October 2018 02:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9287C129619 for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:59:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oXgqwlOhJogH for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:59:29 -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 EC7191286E3 for <>; Sun, 14 Oct 2018 19:59:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown []) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id CE361C36102C0 for <>; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:59:23 +0100 (IST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 03:59:24 +0100
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0399.000; Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:59:19 +0800
From: Qin Wu <>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 02:59:19 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] WGLC on netconf-event-notifications-13
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Network Configuration WG mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2018 02:59:32 -0000

发件人: Eric Voit (evoit) [] 
发送时间: 2018年10月13日 5:06
收件人: Qin Wu;
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,


> -Qin
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list