Re: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10 review

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 21 March 2018 22:54 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.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 F26A412E056 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:54:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 EXQT3ssMKmca for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8133412E03D for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 15:54:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=7108; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1521672863; x=1522882463; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+sOYhbSC2XL9m5SflK1mEZ2UY9lG+3NEUtRC74SvXmc=; b=kuhCQ8ozTFwdnB1svbUyOCRfZm1xAXzfBSpCtOP1kjWoVUq9gZa2FurJ Ixr2YR5s7kmRFZaHWy+G6+bFo7CJKJJle3KxtROvDyQeiqom4NiOrYeHc 0oY4Cu+kMfOltXCLAhClJI7ZUOdLf0mGTtn2Go/XpnANQYNXwXDWRCWGe Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0ASAQAp4rJa/4QNJK1UCRkBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQEHAQEBAQGDPWFwKAqDUod/jQyBcYEQkygUgXULGA2EFEwCGoM8ITQ?= =?us-ascii?q?YAQIBAQEBAQECayiFJQEBAQMBAQEhETMHCQcHBAIBCBEEAQEBAgIIAR0CAgI?= =?us-ascii?q?lCxUICAIEARIIE4RrCA+sQ4IgiESBdgWBCYY6gVNAgQ6DCoMTAQEDgSsBCAo?= =?us-ascii?q?BBy+CaoJUA4djhgeDVYZ8CQKGDIkegU2DfodtiTOGXAIREwGBJQEcOGFxcBU?= =?us-ascii?q?6gkOQT3CNQYEggRYBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.48,341,1517875200"; d="scan'208";a="368972594"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Mar 2018 22:54:09 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (xch-rtp-015.cisco.com [64.101.220.155]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w2LMs99m026172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 21 Mar 2018 22:54:09 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-015.cisco.com (64.101.220.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:54:08 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 21 Mar 2018 18:54:08 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Balazs Lengyel <balazs.lengyel@ericsson.com>, Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10 review
Thread-Index: AQHTvkPdeAg1cO1SX0ecJskr0Q4sn6PbSnvg
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 22:54:08 +0000
Message-ID: <a8b3a1f5d724498499f0c5ab291b40ae@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <DA8A1569-826D-4744-B780-90CDA064D0BD@juniper.net> <ef9c874b-35dc-7f88-07de-fc6ce57d6d2b@ericsson.com>
In-Reply-To: <ef9c874b-35dc-7f88-07de-fc6ce57d6d2b@ericsson.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.61.71.125]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/nxGP8zasjI903sQjX0ynBFDf_GE>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10 review
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 22:54:26 -0000

Hi Balazs,

All changes listed below should be addressed.  The results can also be seen in...
https://github.com/netconf-wg/rfc5277bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-11.txt 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf <netconf-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2018 7:01 PM
> To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>; netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Netconf] LC on subscribed-notifications-10 review
> 
> Hello,
> 
> My last call review. Sorry if some of the comments are already mentioned.
> I  think the document is in a good shape, ready to progress onwards (if my
> MAJOR comments are clarified.).
> 
> Abstract:  "Also defined are delivery mechanisms for instances of the
> resulting notification messages."
> Aren't these in other drafts?

Notification message definition mechanisms are defined in this document.  But a complete solution requires a transport draft as well.

> P5)
> Dynamic subscriptions can only be modified via an RPC request made by
> the original subscriber.
> Is it stated/documented that at least for netconf the same session must be
> used?

Yes.  Text refined.
 
> P7))
> "If access control permissions are in use to secure publisher content,
>     then for event records to be sent to a receiver, that receiver MUST
>     be allowed access to all the event records on the stream."
> 
> So if in Yang-push I subscribe to 2 separate objects, but I only have rights to
> one of them, I will not get notifications when the other changes?

That is YANG push, and that is how it works.   Stream filtering allows access to all or none of an event.
 
> P10) MAJOR
> In the tree it is indicated that establish-subscription has an
> output(subscription-id). This is missing from the Yang Model

Fixed

> P13) It should be stated that delete-subscription MUST always succeed if
> the subscription exists.

Text now says:

If the delete request matches a known subscription established on the same transport session, then it MUST be deleted; otherwise it MUST be rejected with no changes to the publisher.
 
> P15) second list: transport parameter should be mentioned

Fixed.  Put in encoding too.

> P22)
> The publisher may decide to terminate a subscription for any other reason
> too (license expiry, configuration switch, internal error, etc.)

Text updated

> P26) MAJOR
> The tree indicates everything as readOnly while a lot of this can be
> configured.

Fixed
 
> P32) Shouldn't the transport identities be defined in the relevant transport
> drafts/RFCs?

That could be done.   But it would require new yang modules for a single identity.  Seems like overkill to me.

 
> P34) There really should be a filter example to show how it is applied
> against the notification.

We took the same path as other YANG documents expressing XPATH or subtree filters.  In any case, filters documented for those examples should work here without change.
 
> What happens if multiple event records are carried in one notification
> message. Is that possible? It should be stated explicitly somewhere.

It is not prohibited.  But have to do this is not defined.  Where it will be defined is notification-messages.

> How is the filter applied in this case?

Before the bundling happens.   The filter is explicitly defined against the event record, and not the bundle.

> P37) Why is require-instance for leaf stream false?
> 
> P39) grouping receiver-info: "Defines where and how to get notification
> messages" IMHO use send instead of get in the first line of the description

Removed group (result of NMDA simplification).  Objects are now in the subscriptions container.
 
> P48) "A list of pre-positioned filters"   use pre-configured or pre-provisioned

Updated.

Thanks again!
Eric

> regards Balazs
> 
> 
> On 3/1/2018 12:09 AM, Kent Watsen wrote:
> > WG,
> >
> > The authors of netconf-event-notifications have indicated privately that
> they believe this document is now ready for Last Call.
> >
> > This starts a 2.5-week Last Call on
> > draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-10 [1] The LC will end on March
> 17, or when active threads peter out.
> >
> > Please send your comments on this thread. Reviews of the document, and
> statement of support, are particularly helpful to the authors.  If you have
> concerns about the document, please state those too.
> >
> > Authors please indicate if you are aware of any IPR on the document.
> >
> >
> > [1]
> > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notification
> > s-10
> >
> >
> > Kent & Mahesh
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf