Return-Path: 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 CE51F120845 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:33:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.199 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 D0gPdZVROrX4 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E7E6120844 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 02:33:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.106]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 683AA9B2F7F514603358 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:33:47 +0100 (IST) Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml704-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.45) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.408.0; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 10:33:46 +0100 Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0439.000; Wed, 11 Sep 2019 17:33:43 +0800 From: Tianran Zhou To: Kent Watsen , "netconf@ietf.org" Thread-Topic: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00 Thread-Index: AQHVXFoPOUn3XT57XkG9BuZUaItVxKcmTP+Q Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2019 09:33:43 +0000 Message-ID: References: <0100016ccff35064-9da3c8b6-263c-47f6-a4f2-4db9495bc8b7-000000@email.amazonses.com> In-Reply-To: <0100016ccff35064-9da3c8b6-263c-47f6-a4f2-4db9495bc8b7-000000@email.amazonses.com> Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US Content-Language: zh-CN X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEFB1420NKGEML515MBXchi_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Archived-At: Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00 X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org 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, 11 Sep 2019 09:33:52 -0000 --_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEFB1420NKGEML515MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Kent, Considering the multiple stream originator case, I would suggest this https= -notif to add a channel level configuration. i.e. +--receivers +--receiver +--channels +--channel +--here put the http client server configurations This is compatible with the single originator case with only one channel co= nfiguration. If you do not like this, I think existing https-notif model also works. i.e. each receiver configuration stands for one channel. But this is not clear IMO. Best, Tianran From: netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 6:02 AM To: netconf@ietf.org Subject: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00 This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00 In-room support for this draft was noted but, as always, it is necessary to= confirm WG consensus on the list. If interested in the WG defining an HTT= PS-based solution for *configured subscriptions* (for which there are none = to date), please voice your support for this draft's adoption. If objectin= g, please state your reasons. PS: Authors, please additionally respond to as if there is any IPR to discl= ose. Kent and Mahesh // as chairs --_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEFB1420NKGEML515MBXchi_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Kent,

 

Considering the multiple stream originator ca= se, I would suggest this https-notif to add a channel level configuration.<= o:p>

i.e.

 

+--receivers

   +--receiver

      +--channel= s

       &nb= sp; +--channel

       &nb= sp;    +--here put the http client server configurations=

 

This is compatible with the single originator= case with only one channel configuration.

 

If you do not like this, I think existing htt= ps-notif model also works.

i.e. each receiver configuration stands for o= ne channel.

But this is not clear IMO.<= /p>

 

Best,

Tianran

 

From: = netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
Sent: Tuesday, August 27, 2019 6:02 AM
To: netconf@ietf.org
Subject: [netconf] Adoption Call for draft-mahesh-netconf-https-noti= f-00

 

This email begins a 2-week adoption poll for:

 

    = https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mahesh-netconf-https-notif-00=

In-room support for this draft was not= ed but, as always, it is necessary to confirm WG consensus on the list. &nb= sp;If interested in the WG defining an HTTPS-based solution for *configured subscriptions* (for which there are none to date), please&= nbsp;voice your support for this draft's adoption.  If objecting, plea= se state your reasons.  =

 

PS: Authors, please additionally respo= nd to as if there is any IPR to disclose.


Kent and Mahesh // as chairs

--_000_BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21BEFB1420NKGEML515MBXchi_--