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

Hi Andy,

Thank you very much for your interest.
The two drafts was one when it first came out.
 draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
We split it based on the WG discussion, so that the distributed-notif can also serve the tcp based notif.

Current distributed-notif solution depends on draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages. But I believe draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages tries to solve more problems in addition to distributed-notif.

On your suggestion, I think we can work on an profile or applicability, to see how they can work together.

Thanks,
Tianran

From: netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2020 6:08 AM
To: Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com>
Cc: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 2:47 PM Mahesh Jethanandani <mjethanandani@gmail.com<mailto:mjethanandani@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Andy,

On Aug 10, 2020, at 12:37 PM, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com<mailto:andy@yumaworks.com>> wrote:

Hi,

I am trying to understand the NETCONF WG plan for UDP transport of notifications.

The WG was developing a UDP draft already I think, and it was dropped.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel-05

In IETF 103, there was extensive discussion on draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel, with questions raised about the scope of the draft. In IETF 105 and 106, our guidance (see meeting minutes) was to repurpose the draft for a UDP notification channel, which the WG would then ultimately adopt. This draft satisfies that request. To clarify this further, the datatracker marks the new draft as a replacement for the draft-ietf-netconf-udp-pub-channel.

I support adoption of this draft.
I am willing to work on the document, review it, and implement it.
Hopefully the authors will add an example of a notification in each encoding soon.

IMO there really should be 1 RFC that combines these documents:

     draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
     draft-unyte-netconf-distributed-notif
     draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages

The single source vs. multi-source distinction does not really require separate documents.
General one-size-fits-all notification headers are too inefficient to use in
a high performance telemetry system.  Not sure where notification-messages will ever get used.
IMO these 3 documents could be a good protocol, if combined and focused correctly.

Mahesh & Kent (as co-chair)

Andy

Since the WG dropped this problem and work item already, why should it reverse that decision
and start over with a new solution?

Andy

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:14 PM Kent Watsen <kent+ietf@watsen..net<mailto:kent%2Bietf@watsen.net>> wrote:
NETCONF WG,

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

   Title: UDP-based Transport for Configured Subscriptions
   Link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
   Abstract:

      This document describes an UDP-based notification mechanism to
      collect data from networking devices.  A shim header is proposed to
      facilitate the streaming of data directly from line cards to a
      collector.  The objective is to rely on a lightweight approach to
      allow for higher frequency and better transit performance compared to
      already established notification mechanisms.

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.

NETCONF Chairs

_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
_______________________________________________
netconf mailing list
netconf@ietf.org<mailto:netconf@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf