Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscriptions?
Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Sat, 07 July 2018 18:07 UTC
Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 D4F32130E89 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 11:07:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 YjrLeGXGucVl for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 11:07:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x232.google.com (mail-lj1-x232.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC3E4130E18 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 11:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x232.google.com with SMTP id t21-v6so11306166lji.0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 11:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=b0hlaWDRnIVxHBWM6aFZLkTlJdF/MOYrTF4rJHHZBh4=; b=wD+q/TwpzBibigFB/g/r/qhXNaKOlEzCCEoBTZwzutdpMRO5zBvcysIOJi1oi7Nwqt LloxEK0+gAVmzpCJRGr8/pJlnylLCb5OxKVqeEFnkSNZQ4B4c9Rv0+ygtgVFWgSH12fB 1yyt1UcbQX5XFnsV9jepibFXBHOIESOXZ8rVq2NXyN8rZSoceHgMJhbgFquVjm/cgX1W U8c5CsDUMM/+Z+H0ddmQbP6S0R5TxU8UpNEz6G+LQd1mh/1TTA5RcgFbPaxKIt0Sru44 2utnczhAfzRGBxKZhL2j0gCj+L/I/YBNyuUQEbuRslcFHk2RXmS4Jc6fBwX1LtHiXgYD 5DNw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=b0hlaWDRnIVxHBWM6aFZLkTlJdF/MOYrTF4rJHHZBh4=; b=DSmU/BVp/+d0iNTo/YOgqvJ6iNNY9SrNknJN0QusiC0OGeMXe7OMcr4pcK84FOpfu9 5eVMD4zPKeG3ixVtlhjtgNApDlDxgSxlAitkyZ26SempvtKVhFOujWLNZYC8M3LeuJoH 1EZgRTlGuCzOwvO5mhykHsgvWoMZ5NvCXEEZwUB215JyS/MBgZo0qliJ85dwYr+obPC+ U3CKd20GKoYUIFhTZ3axusbMkWAfFWRWPKt7M+R+vqkk++TumKqdiUX7M8CE6P6GUutp jz4n9G7RFA65Jc5p4661OGAn3ZZuPc9QS2vaiacsonK1xGVYomTIXciIXsB3mVmMuEoU 22UA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E2FIpvkdX0WRmzXQcZbW7vD+Iw3FbMzwYo+DglYBHBXFzQsVqXc o3g1CyRP5oSxo1h7nD+ebjyijF22YRUu1umNcy70VA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AAOMgpf8RwVyVLPLkpZJnnZ7hAaYswrzWYk7bzvH9D04JYBPEdMBXfeXWi2mwGOhtbKK1gPl5/H6Q1hUHNy4HHV3qco=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:195c:: with SMTP id p89-v6mr9643768lje.138.1530986848754; Sat, 07 Jul 2018 11:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:a19:aa46:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Sat, 7 Jul 2018 11:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20180707.191800.381558468801603068.mbj@tail-f.com>
References: <895bc6a027484796a0aa0dde4c144f8b@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180707.122539.1914166298230280820.mbj@tail-f.com> <CABCOCHRXPZsA-_0_w_L9Z5o0ZH5U_ntx0A-ZQHzFOpa+P4actQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180707.191800.381558468801603068.mbj@tail-f.com>
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 11:07:27 -0700
Message-ID: <CABCOCHSfzpj3Kca2RRtNFV6wLLt_6r4p3vfS_j4Hzfai-0Y2gA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
Cc: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000046b09405706ca7c7"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/kkUJ8Jp8z6waw1I9RZxQGMQQQzI>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscriptions?
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Sat, 07 Jul 2018 18:07:36 -0000
On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 10:18 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote: > Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> wrote: > > > > > "Eric Voit \(evoit\)" <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > > > From: Andy Bierman, July 5, 2018 1:44 PM > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 10:31 AM, Eric Voit (evoit) > > > > <evoit@cisco.com<mailto:evoit@cisco.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > > > > > From: Andy Bierman, July 5, 2018 12:26 PM > > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > Of course it interacts poorly with CallHome, because the receiver > list > > > > is used INSTEAD of CallHome, > > > > not with CallHome. CH is for initiating a new NC or RC session, so a > > > > "special" version of it > > > > that doesn't initiate a session would be a misuse. I guess the > > > > concept of SNMP Trap Receiver is > > > > not that clear to the NETCONF WG. > > > > > > > > <Eric> Agree. > > > > > > I am confused. The intention is to use the "receiver" list AND call > > > home, right? IMO, the "receiver" list is a transport indenpendent > > > construct, and depending on the transport, it is augmented with > > > necessary parameters; in the case of NETCONF call-home will be used. > > > In the case of UDP some other parameters will be used. Etc. > > > > > > > > > > > I am not a fan of standards that are useless unless and until > > they are augmented with proprietary objects. > > > > CallHome does not really work here because once it is completed > > the NETCONF session is idle. The server is waiting for > > the client to send an <rpc-request>. There is nothing standard that > > indicates > > the client will just wait and the server will start sending > notifications. > > I see. But is there really anything in 6241 that prohibits this? > Wouldn't it be ok if the new netconf-notif draft specifies this > behavior? > > If it can't be solved in this way, we'd have to define a new rpc > <start-all-subscribed-subscriptions> > > You mean <start-all-configured-subscriptions> I think. No need. I guess this does not violate CallHome. There is no way to tell (except by implementation) if the callhome client can accept <notification> messages even though it did not request them with an RPC. > /martin > > > Andy > > > > > > > As a standard, this is unusable. > > It assumes the client developer will know the magic port numbers in > advance > > in order to use each server (maybe port 40123 mean subscription 23 on > > server X and port 40023 means a regular CallHome session. Network > management > > by ad-hoc port assignments seems fragile at best. > > > > > > > > /martin > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > Current path allows augmentation of leafrefs to NETCONF > > > > CH once client-server completes. For our implementation, we will be > > > > augmenting in address and port now. This will be a vendor specific > > > > augmentation of course. > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > To make progress, I am ok with anything here but stalemate. And if > > > > only supporting dynamic subscriptions results in progress, that is ok > > > > with me. > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > Configured subscriptions are less important for us. > > > > > > > > regards Balazs > > > > > > > > On 7/4/2018 9:40 PM, Andy Bierman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 12:17 PM, Kent Watsen > > > > <kwatsen@juniper.net<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>> wrote: > > > > Since folks are leaning towards: > > > > > > > > dynamic: MUST > > > > configured: MAY > > > > > > > > We might also consider: > > > > > > > > dynamic: MUST > > > > configured: TBD > > > > > > > > Since the transport bindings (only needed for configured > > > > subscriptions) seem to depend on the client/server drafts, which > > > > aren't ready yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > The "receiver" list is rather proprietary since it has nothing in it > > > > about where or how to send packets, > > > > such as the destination socket, protocol, or message encoding. > > > > I don't see how configured subscriptions are useful as a standard > > > > without these details. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kent // contributor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/2/18, 6:50 PM, "Eric Voit (evoit)" > > > > <evoit@cisco.com<mailto:evoit@cisco.com>> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am closing this question. All votes are for Option 2, which is > > > > reflected in the current draft. > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > From: Andy Bierman, June 25, 2018 1:22 PM > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 5:45 AM, Kent Watsen > > > > <kwatsen@juniper.net<mailto:kwatsen@juniper.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > > To be clear, we’re discussing conformance requirements. Options are: > > > > > > > > 1: dynamic: MAY > > > > configured: MAY > > > > > > > > 2: dynamic: MUST > > > > configured: MAY > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I support this option (I think this is in the draft now). > > > > The configured subscriptions are likely less interoperable at this > > > > point because > > > > the protocol, transport, and encoding could be proprietary. There > are > > > > also > > > > call-home issues (magic proprietary port X means plain call-home, > > > > magic port Y means subscription call-home). > > > > > > > > The dynamic subscription is much more constrained by the NETCONF or > > > > RESTCONF > > > > protocols, so it is more likely to be consistent across server > > > > implementations. > > > > > > > > There is no extra burden for supporting an RPC in addition to > > > > edit-config. > > > > (As edit-config itself is an RPC.) The RPC does not introduce > > > > parameters > > > > that are not already in the configured subscriptions.. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 3: dynamic: MAY > > > > configured: MUST > > > > > > > > 4: dynamic: MUST > > > > configured: MUST > > > > > > > > I don’t really care, as long as there is a good reason for it. > > > > > > > > Kent // contributor > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 24, 2018, at 7:42 AM, Henk Birkholz > > > > <henk.birkholz@sit.fraunhofer.de<mailto:henk.birkholz@sit. > fraunhofer.de > > > >> > > > > wrote: > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > > > this poll seems to ask only for "yes" votes, but maybe I am missing > > > > something obvious here, but I am also new to the domain of netconf. > > > > > > > > In any case, I would like to voice a strong no wrt "only Configured > > > > Subscriptions". In complement, I would like to voice a strong yes wrt > > > > "Dynamic Subscriptions are not turned into an optional feature". > > > > > > > > Drop-shipping or enrollment of YANG datastores should support > > > > resilient rendezvous, join or discovery prodedures. I am aware of > call > > > > home and this seems to be an excellent lightweight basis to build > more > > > > complex solutions on that will benefit significantly from available > > > > dynamic subscription features. > > > > > > > > Viele Grüße, > > > > > > > > Henk > > > > On June 23, 2018 7:50:33 AM GMT+02:00, "Eric Voit (evoit)" > > > > <evoit=40cisco.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ > > > url?u=http-3A__40cisco.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > > > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m= > > > 6F3EmGQsbc6Pw0-388AClIWIuFSd8lJgeV1wTTBcqy4&s= > > > fayskuGFUwaicBmdSM3jKsn4WctY15g1FRQuJrZcd7I&e=>@dmarc.ietf.org< > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http- > > > 3A__dmarc.ietf.org&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > > > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m= > > > HWeJMn9vdaXx8aXKRl88y-y1kxIITqL4DeOrv2ykrX8&s= > g9Gr4Dqd_DvMfHmlF8pBRvori_ > > > D1bd7UloKmwLO1YfE&e=>> > > > > wrote: > > > > Per below, Kent is interested to know if anyone wants to support a > > > > Publisher of just Configured Subscriptions. This would turn Dynamic > > > > Subscriptions into an optional feature. > > > > > > > > > > > > So does anyone want this? If a few people say yes, I will tweak the > > > > document. > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Kent8> I understand that supporting dynamic subscriptions is > > > > currently a requirement. I am challenging that requirement. Why is > > > > it a requirement? Does it have to be a requirement? > > > > > > > > What if an IoT device only wants to support configured subscriptions > > > > and having code to support dynamic is wasting space? FWIW, I realize > > > > that not supporting dynamic subscriptions also means that it would be > > > > impossible to filling in gaps introduced by a reboot, but maybe > that's > > > > a decision that the vendor can/should make for themselves? > > > > > > > > <Eric9> In RFC-5277, all you have is dynamic subscriptions. So > > > > support for that older spec by definition makes dynamic subscriptions > > > > mandatory. Beyond that, newer specifications like RFC-7923 as well > as > > > > sections of other documents like RFC-7921, section 7.6 identify > > > > dynamic subscriptions as mandatory for a subscription service. So at > > > > least some use cases exist where such dynamic support is mandatory. > > > > > > > > <Kent9> Does it? I mean, this draft doesn't obsolete 5277, so it > > > > seems that server can optionally support one or the other or both, > and > > > > when it supports this draft, can't it use a feature statement to > limit > > > > dynamic subscriptions? > > > > > > > > <Eric10> Per below, I am ok to make dynamic subscription support > > > > optional (even if I don’t believe this is the right decision). Part > > > > of the fix in the YANG Model description text would be to note that > > > > either dynamic or configured must be supported. > > > > > > > > With your IoT publisher use case above you are asserting that dynamic > > > > subscriptions are not needed for configured subscription only > > > > publishers – i.e., there are a class of publishers which have been > > > > driven by use cases not considered by the documents referenced above. > > > > So who has documented the need configured subscription only > > > > publishers? I can’t point to such documentation (beyond IoT case > > > > above). Is such a possibility worth slowing down this spec? In the > > > > end making the fix for this specification which you seem to want is > > > > itself really quite trivial: we can make both dynamic and configured > > > > subscriptions optional. The reason I have been resisting it is that > > > > this solution (a) leads to more complexity for implementers as yet > > > > another feature would have to be advertised as optional, (b) this > > > > waters down the mandatory capabilities support of the YANG module, > and > > > > (c) we would need to include some a constraint that at least one of > > > > the two optional features needs to be supported. Also for (c) AFAIK, > > > > features don’t support the application of such constraints, so it > > > > would have to be done in the feature descriptions themselves. > > > > > > > > I guess the text above is a long way of saying that if you assert the > > > > optional dynamic subscription is mandatory to progress the document, > I > > > > will make the change. But the change will impose complexity costs > > > > which to me are hard to justify. > > > > > > > > <Kent10> why don't you ask the WG? "Should we support servers having > > > > only configured subscriptions (i.e. no dynamic subscriptions)?" > FWIW, > > > > the ietf-*conf-server modules have features around both the "listen" > > > > and "call-home" subtrees. Heck, you might think "listen" would be > > > > mandatory (per RFC 6241), but still we support the possibility of a > > > > server only supporting call-home… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > <Kent9> that's a reasonable answer, but mind you that it was your IoT > > > > use-case originally. I'd like to get other opinions. Yes, trivial > to > > > > add now, hard to add later, more flexibility for servers, almost no > > > > additional effort for clients. FWIW, I'm planning to add a feature > > > > statement for "periodic connections" in the > > > > ietf-[net|rest]conf-client-server drafts for similar reasons, that > the > > > > server just might not want to support them, and I don't want the > > > > minimal bar to be higher than needed. > > > > > > > > <Eric10> Lets go with whatever opinions people have. I will adapt > > > > accordingly. Do you want me to start an independent thread? > > > > > > > > <Kent10> yes, please ask the WG > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Netconf mailing list > > > > Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf<https:// > > > urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_ > > > mailman_listinfo_netconf&d=DwMGaQ&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > > > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m= > > > HWeJMn9vdaXx8aXKRl88y-y1kxIITqL4DeOrv2ykrX8&s=jWWYWO3k32- > > > 6mUco2IlCaCSzMXOuQzyzGamyAcIz1tE&e=> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > Netconf mailing list > > > > > > > > Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org> > > > > > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Balazs Lengyel Ericsson Hungary Ltd. > > > > > > > > Senior Specialist > > > > > > > > Mobile: +36-70-330-7909 email: > > > > Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com<mailto:Balazs.Lengyel@ericsson.com> > > > > > > > > > > > >
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Balazs Lengyel
- [Netconf] YangPush now Balazs Lengyel
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Qin Wu
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Henk Birkholz
- [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscriptio… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] Anyone want just Configured Subscri… Lou Berger
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Henk Birkholz
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Igor Bryskin
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Henk Birkholz
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Henk Birkholz
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Reshad Rahman (rrahman)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Henk Birkholz
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Balazs Lengyel
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Tim Jenkins (timjenki)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Tim Jenkins (timjenki)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Tim Jenkins (timjenki)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Tim Jenkins (timjenki)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Tim Jenkins (timjenki)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Robert Wilton
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] YangPush now Juergen Schoenwaelder