Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06

Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> Thu, 18 February 2021 22:28 UTC

Return-Path: <01000177b7428848-f48b34d9-2240-4916-9a62-2be1f06bb7df-000000@amazonses.watsen.net>
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 775A53A1939; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:28:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazonses.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 EMdHa73jotOF; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:28:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from a8-31.smtp-out.amazonses.com (a8-31.smtp-out.amazonses.com [54.240.8.31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 353BE3A1935; Thu, 18 Feb 2021 14:28:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/simple; s=224i4yxa5dv7c2xz3womw6peuasteono; d=amazonses.com; t=1613687327; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:References:To:Feedback-ID; bh=IzHYCw+ZXqPh9LZwJM7KaAwFakdAET5+S/2OmIcDWCo=; b=cfq/W8aad8z84o9Px6XEO+dNl21eFhqS9ghPQxTg1PFrk8wFqqfdmbUhma/OU4Me 9OKqj3eUn7YXUr1vrZFSFM00YCMmAGc54Sp+WG5oZCCw7vUFri0UyrehuiMn3A1w4DW LfA8ekygkiKh6hwr82SkAdHDMW5B9si/a8nrSzdc=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net>
In-Reply-To: <BL0PR11MB3122FAD872B1FF80FDC6E0ABA18C9@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:28:46 +0000
Cc: "draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif@ietf.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <01000177b7428848-f48b34d9-2240-4916-9a62-2be1f06bb7df-000000@email.amazonses.com>
References: <MN2PR11MB43669EEF05655F07E39FE4BEB5A80@MN2PR11MB4366.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR11MB3122129B92F8B02D99081112A1BD9@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BL0PR11MB3122FAD872B1FF80FDC6E0ABA18C9@BL0PR11MB3122.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
X-SES-Outgoing: 2021.02.18-54.240.8.31
Feedback-ID: 1.us-east-1.DKmIRZFhhsBhtmFMNikgwZUWVrODEw9qVcPhqJEI2DA=:AmazonSES
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/nRoCWcW952Kp4i6TetjNWUl6ivw>
Subject: Re: [netconf] WGLC: draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif-06
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Thu, 18 Feb 2021 22:28:50 -0000

Hi Eric,

> The majority of examples showing <subscription-started> have been removed.
> The last place where they are discussed in -07 is the end of Section 2.   I
> still feel that describing the coverage or non-coverage of the set of
> subscription state change notifications within a stream of event provides a
> useful context.

We’re unclear why this document should need or want to repeat what is defined in another RFC.  This document regards how to send notifications, regardless where they are defined.

As you note, Section 2 currently has the following statement:

      Note that, for RFC 8639 configured subscriptions, the very first
      notification must be the "subscription-started" notification.</t>

Perhaps we should remove this sentence too, or replace “must” with “would”, so it doesn’t should normative?   Please advise.

Thanks,
Kent and Mahesh