IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline

Ariel Otilibili Anieli <otilibil@eurecom.fr> Sun, 29 July 2018 20:49 UTC

Return-Path: <otilibil@eurecom.fr>
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 00BEC130E06 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 13:49:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 EZX-koPfG9ZU for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 13:49:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp2.eurecom.fr (smtp2.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.211]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8E91130EF0 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 13:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,420,1526335200"; d="scan'208";a="9662826"
Received: from thorgal.eurecom.fr ([10.3.2.220]) by drago2i.eurecom.fr with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2018 22:49:22 +0200
Received: (from apache@localhost) by thorgal.eurecom.fr (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4/Submit) id w6TKnL0d014594; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 22:49:21 +0200 (CEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: thorgal.eurecom.fr: apache set sender to otilibil@eurecom.fr using -f
Received: from lam06-2-82-234-168-183.fbx.proxad.net (lam06-2-82-234-168-183.fbx.proxad.net [82.234.168.183]) by webmail.eurecom.fr (Horde MIME library) with HTTP; Sun, 29 Jul 2018 22:49:21 +0200
Message-ID: <20180729224921.9u6y9jyx0gos0swg@webmail.eurecom.fr>
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 22:49:21 +0200
From: Ariel Otilibili Anieli <otilibil@eurecom.fr>
To: "Beauville, Yves (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <yves.beauville@nokia.com>
Cc: Rohit R Ranade <rohitrranade@huawei.com>, Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
References: <20180718112108.hqgetzfebhqpdpsk@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <AD20F795-CBD3-4054-BD09-4F7DD45CFACB@juniper.net> <20180718150228.e2vcccd34sivmz3h@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <CABCOCHTtfTNCJiT-aU96sVrzm2-pHFGi5eATvKcTbdbQ-Whd1A@mail.gmail.com> <991B70D8B4112A4699D5C00DDBBF878A6BBDEF0C@dggeml510-mbx.china.huawei.com> <2b52b279-9f9a-45f0-fa86-6931d0393274@nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <2b52b279-9f9a-45f0-fa86-6931d0393274@nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; DelSp="Yes"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.1.4)
X-Originating-IP: 82.234.168.183
X-Remote-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; Android 6.0; PLK-L01 Build/HONORPLK-L01) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/67.0.3396.87 Mobile Safari/537.36
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/myohOnbV16n68nwXUPlErzr8hJE>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 20:49:28 -0000

Hi Yves,

Below my comments.

Regards,
Ariel

Quoting "Beauville, Yves (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <yves.beauville@nokia.com>:

> Kent, Andy and Rohit,
>
> Could we use a get request with an empty filter, as defined in section
> 6.4.2 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6241#section-6.4.2> of RFC6241?
>
> This looks like the smallest and less impacting RPC defined in the RFC.
>
> Isn't it a good candidate for an aliveness check?
An empty filter retrieves the whole configuration; which can take a  
lot space and time.

I would rather use, as filter of the RPC 'get', the 'current-datetime'  
or the 'boot-datetime'.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7317#section-3.2
>
> Yves
>
> On 19-07-18 05:20, Rohit R Ranade wrote:
>>
>> *From:*Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Andy Bierman
>> *Sent:* 18 July 2018 23:32
>> *To:* Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>;  
>>  Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>; netconf@ietf.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Netconf] configuration models status and timeline
>>
>>    <snip>
>>
>>    Ideally, the keep alive would just be handled at the session
>>    layer. I am
>>    not sure where the NC spec allows
>>
>>    C: <rpc message-id="101"
>>    C: xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"/>
>>    S: <rpc-reply message-id="101"
>>    S: xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:netconf:base:1.0"/>
>>
>>    otherwise one could define a noop RPC (I am not sure invoking a fake
>>    edit-config is necessarily a good idea).
>>
>> I prefer an <no-op> RPC for this purpose.
>>
>> It would be better if the session counters were not affected,
>>
>> but that would require protocol changes.
>>
>> Causing error counters to increment for keep-alives is bad.
>>
>> */[Rohit R Ranade] /*+1
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Netconf mailing list
>> Netconf@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using EURECOM Webmail: http://webmail.eurecom.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email