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

"" <> Wed, 12 August 2020 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A47EC3A07C8 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:44:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Quarantine-ID: <yZhyk68c4313>
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Amavis-Alert: BAD HEADER SECTION, Duplicate header field: "Message-ID"
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.395
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB=1.5, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.982, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yZhyk68c4313 for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:44:00 -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 C9F9D3A0EDD for <>; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 20:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=s201512; t=1597203811; bh=fAKuRYmxAuBbDKOvZBirHDVeTW2mc7t4bWWlnqJe/x4=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References; b=eUeOV4I1MM/t+53w8fXDXyrlt9eCuzTubeZ+lfhMap5BUuz539/rHIL4UyFTfGTLC 6muuPEiafmUA+DVMqrOeSHKL3H+A1l1B3gv+iUFy1wN2nuJaDo7mvDDF/rmuzxJB1F 4cyHEl9rwqmqujU7dWdLXw7NKDiIFs6KoLTiC7ZI=
Received: from cmcc-PC ([]) by (NewEsmtp) with SMTP id ADCAD26B; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:43:28 +0800
X-QQ-mid: xmsmtpt1597203808twnhjbw6w
Message-ID: <>
X-QQ-XMAILINFO: OJmJwEl4zPMRAdu/gW34UUowwZmHX6CS3ygP142/f+0ed9nELTuCLO7shr0PVD LYsQ2gkUzcDXoXQmyjDSKoRHboMGbiOtDgTri01b9ypnaYbKLmPn8F8d1n7n3aBA4s01NyHU86C9 Gdx2glWO5fL5Ufuuwz70FoT8lVxaXBZvWIbucnM/TkO7sYwis5/iR8H318WaB8GGpM59OnH5eoXx 58cysqLA80jeWcjtDW1KEJI+2oLPKqLMWtgEjCSZOXiFQJuDO2EbV3KxLhk1LAM5rKmKXg9RpTj5 p/Oygd2ZPW3uaXUtv0V5krBfDabQTpbKMKMIe7WLQStrVbLPRXT+WvzzSMr9HIy8QevMMg4LwQ6/ w8h7yizphHZnYmxxdPYwETV+6sbfeYpd57uEUzemEXXnt1xS6rdNEtMhsXEpLYYUuAJeltSu6u/a ZouGOIHrCXoA0XdTt1odizuZti37qfQPR7zQiRaKklM+dvoscll/yMTBngaQgHUdkjJgcOCwRR2g VfJ5obnHBl+NbCyubQK/qBAxbhfwpdRXBKF7QV4Clrox1o28j2ranq3xJ0ddACz5d9zeW5YguEFq gR2ymhvuskMhn9S9MsMhm1iZNgPVEp9oZcBjUBANhA7UCupzUftsv7jmvmMplLkHXCEwTyn8X9eH aj7PBLv3XKn8c/XMsl/wos0hBTK3sDb7RxkCyyApxe6z5h9r2iT8WV81bXg84C11CApVk0BaCgyZ U4hZaw1+BFPai24QKgTE0hqkrVyZmjeG04
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 11:45:42 +0800
From: "" <>
To: "Kent Watsen" <>, "" <>
Cc: duzongpeng <>
References: <>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart761000025715_=----"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 03:44:06 -0000

Hi WG,

With regard to the 2 questions:

    1) is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?

I think the UDP transport for configured subscription is valuable for the NETCONF WG. It's useful in at least two scenarios in carrier network.
One is for core devices with large amount of data to export. The UDP transport together with distributed exporting mechanism could relieve the device work load.
The second is when the collector want to collect data from large amount of devices, e.g., the devices at the edge. The proposed solution can make the collector's life easier.

    2) is the draft a suitable basis for the work?

I've read document. I believe it's a good basis for the working group to continue. &
From: Kent Watsen
Date: 2020-08-06 06:14
Subject: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-unyte-netconf-udp-notif
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
      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 mailing list