Re: [Netconf] a joint discussion on dynamic subscription

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

> From: Martin Bjorklund, June 14, 2018 11:34 AM
> 
> "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > From: Martin Bjorklund, June 14, 2018 4:38 AM
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Another thing related to this.   You have:
> > >
> > >    Receiver: A target to which a publisher pushes subscribed event
> > >    records.  For dynamic subscriptions, the receiver and subscriber are
> > >    the same entity.
> > >
> > > But in the HTTP and UDP cases this last sentence is probably not
> > > true, right?
> > >
> > > Also, I have always struggled with the terms "publisher",
> > > "receiver", "subscriber" vs. "client" and "server".
> > >
> > > I think that a "subscriber" is always the "client".  If so, I think
> > > this should be mentioned in 1.2 (and the term "client" imported from
> > > RFC 8342).
> >
> > The subscriber need not always the transport client.  This is
> > dependent on the transport selected.  For example in the RESTCONF
> > draft for configured subscriptions, the HTTP client is the Publisher,
> > and the HTTP server is the receiver.  See section 4.2 & Figure 3 of
> > draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif.
> 
> How does this change the fact that the subscriber is the client (RFC
> 8342 term)?

On that point, I was just trying to limit the use of the word "client", as it has so many meanings already.

Beyond the many meanings of client, there is another reason why a subscriber isn't necessarily an RFC8342 client.  The RFC8342 definition of client is based on YANG data.  As event streams might not be YANG data, this definition isn't a full match for what is covered by subscribed-notifications.  (However it would be a match for a YANG-Push subscriber.)

Eric
 
> > For draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel draft, I can see the
> > possibility of transport client session being initiated from the line
> > cards.
> 
> Right, that's why I assumed there is a separation between server and publisher.
> "server" again in RFC 8342 terms.  It is the server for establish-subscription or
> the server where configured subscriptions are managed.
> 
> 
> /martin
> 
> 
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > > Also, I think it would be useful to draw a picture that demonstrates
> > > the roles:
> > >
> > >       subscriber/client    receiver
> > >           |                   ^
> > >           | (1)               | (3)
> > >           |                   |
> > >           |                   |
> > >           v        (2)        |
> > >         server  ----------> publisher
> > >
> > >
> > > (1) is creation of the subscriptionE; dynamic or configured
> > > (2) is implementation specific
> > > (3) is the delivery of notifications / event records
> > >
> > > NOTE: the subscriber and receiver MAY be the same entity
> > > NOTE: for some transports, if (1) is dynamic, (3) is sent over the
> > >       same session as (1)
> > > NOTE: for some transports, the sevrer and publisher are the same
> > > entity
> > >
> > >
> > > If we can agree on an architectural picture like this, the different
> > > transport docs can refer to this architecture and be defined related
> > > to it.   For example, the netconf transport doc can state that the
> > > publisher is always the same entity etc.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > /martin
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Tianran,
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Tianran Zhou, June 12, 2018 11:47 PM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Eric,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When we are discussing the draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel,
> > > > > > we find a conflict with current dynamic subscription design.
> > > > > > 1. The dynamic subscription requires notification to use the
> > > > > > same channel as the subscription.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is true when you look at the NETCONF transport draft.
> > > > > However this is *not* required by the base subscribed-notification
> draft.
> > > > > And in fact, the HTTP transport draft might not use the same
> > > > > logical channel.  E.g., see how the URI is returned within:
> > > > > https://github.com/netconf-wg/notif-restconf/blob/master/draft-i
> > > > > etf-
> > > > > netconf-restconf-notif-05.txt
> > > > >
> > > > > So if you wanted to define some transport session independence
> > > > > for a UDP transport, subscribed-notifications should permit
> > > > > that.  And if you believe there is something in the text which
> > > > > prohibits this, let me know.
> > > >
> > > > Cool!  I think that this should be explcitly described in the
> > > > subscribed-notifications document.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of RESTCONF, decision to use a separate channel for
> > > > the notifs is implicit in the transport of the request to
> > > > establish-subscription.
> > > >
> > > > In the case of UDP, I think the idea is that the
> > > > establish-subscription is sent over any protocol that can do RPCs
> > > > (NETCONF, RESTCONF, ...), but then some specific input parameter
> > > > informs the server that the notifs are supposed to be sent over
> > > > some other transport.
> > > >
> > > > While reading the text about sessions, I found this:
> > > >
> > > > In 2.4.3:
> > > >
> > > >    The "modify-subscription" operation permits changing the terms of an
> > > >    existing dynamic subscription established on that transport session
> > > >    via "establish-subscription".
> > > >
> > > > Which session does "that transport session" mean?  Perhaps simply:
> > > >
> > > > NEW:
> > > >
> > > >    The "modify-subscription" operation permits changing the terms of an
> > > >    existing dynamic subscription.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 2. The RPC does not have the input information about the
> > > > > > receiver because the above assumption.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, when we talk about the distributed data collection
> > > > > > (multi data originators), the publication channel is always
> > > > > > different from the subscription channel.
> > > > >
> > > > > While it likely isn't what you want, even with NETCONF, the
> > > > > single NETCONF session doesn't means that distributed line card
> > > > > generation of the notification messages is impossible.  For
> > > > > example, the inclusion of the header object message-generator-id
> > > > > (as defined within
> > > > > draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages) allows the
> > > > > notification message generation to be distributed onto linecards
> > > > > even if the messages themselves are still driven back to a
> > > > > central transport session.  Note that I am not recommending
> > > > > this, but the specifications would support this.
> > > > >
> > > > > > So either the distributed data collection does not support
> > > > > > dynamic subscription, or current dynamic subscription
> > > > > > definition may need modification.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think for UDP, you will want to define a way to bind the
> > > > > lifecycle of the dynamic subscription's channels across multiple line
> cards.
> > > > > This will require some thinking as well as coordination within
> > > > > the publisher.
> > > >
> > > > But this is an implementation detail.  However, it is true that
> > > > the specification must work out the fate-sharing details between
> > > > the session that sent the establish-subscription and the notif channel.
> > > > Just as in the "restconf" draft.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > /martin
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Perhaps returning multiple URIs (one for each linecard) might be
> > > > > something which could make this easier.  If you go down this
> > > > > path, you still will need to fate-share the lifecycle of the
> > > > > subscription across all of those line cards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > > What's your thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Tianran
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Netconf mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> > > >
> >