Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Thu, 21 June 2018 11:55 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 4567C130DC4 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 04:55:30 -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_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-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 tT6YcyWZFjAe for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 04:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BD60C130E7E for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 04:55:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5630; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1529582127; x=1530791727; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=9jizZjkxkmMkj9/+5xtiHckdjBq2/sRlqStGSh8W8zM=; b=WjjsEe21YAgf/A4iHaYwcoXCqfLzsmN1qSlhbe2TpDfUeOqNzb3dCo5d whv6RduhTWTfMcQfgzSTD4+PQEfv6+GZok9nzuw1w6dDAXpqzOW0q9WZA xpowPg8pCMsg5FQtPjoccLQc7MS7b5N7+c4yn923t4AUoqRz07Rf004QG U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0DkAACkkStb/5FdJa1bGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJYn8oCoNviASMPoIFlQCBeQsYC4QDRgIXgmQhNBgBAgEBAQEBAQJtHAyFKAEBAQECAQEBIRE6CQIFCwIBBgIOBwMCAiMDAgICJQsUARACBAENBQiDHoF3CA+OPJtHghyIR22BC4dJgVQ/gQ+DD4MYAQECgXWCaoJVApkmCQKPBoFHjAKHcoNchWsCERMBgSQdOIFScBU7gmcJiwiFPm8BjxGBGgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,251,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="413232232"
Received: from rcdn-core-9.cisco.com ([173.37.93.145]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 21 Jun 2018 11:55:26 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (xch-rtp-014.cisco.com [64.101.220.154]) by rcdn-core-9.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5LBtQUW012114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:55:26 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-014.cisco.com (64.101.220.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:55:25 -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; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 07:55:25 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "zhoutianran@huawei.com" <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
CC: "alex@clemm.org" <alex@clemm.org>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
Thread-Index: AQHT/nTB7wTodISdV0qlE/sux4czBKRU8kawgAFinID///zC4IAAXMiA//++zTCABv5KgP//v8BQAAsePAAAAeTiAAAPiUWAAAIQEmAAKpK66wAP4zmQAA4QCIAAGLjSgAADVwtwAOZS1gAABZBdwP//8DuAgAGB6QCAAJfggP///tDw
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:55:24 +0000
Message-ID: <822aad832d5140f39f5fbab3197d667c@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <03a8630197c04815a3aa6d85d667f678@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <CABCOCHSQvaJ+YZT-rGnmoR=pOFXAEGYPSUg4z_9W2-fopsFTYg@mail.gmail.com> <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21B55D00ED@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com> <20180621.094603.190163653994529777.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180621.094603.190163653994529777.mbj@tail-f.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: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/qoeWk8yo6jkJxrmbd7jzqL35ljo>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
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: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 11:55:30 -0000
> From: Martin Bjorklund, June 21, 2018 3:46 AM > > Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> wrote: > > This makes sense to me. I would like to see messages like syslog can > > alse be streamed by this notificatuons. > > What exactly do you mean? If you mean syslog messages wrapped in a > notification like this: > > notification syslog-message { > leaf msg { > type string; > } > } > > then it is trivially supported by this spec. I think the encapsulation is useful too. Do you see a reason for subscribed-notifications to mandate this when transporting event records? Or do you see this as something which should be mandated for draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages? Eric > /martin > > > > > > > > Tianran > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Sent from WeLink > > > > 发件人: Andy Bierman > > 收件人: Eric Voit > > (evoit)<evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:evoit=40cisco.com@dmar > > c.ietf.org>> > > 抄送: > > > alex<alex@clemm.org<mailto:alex@clemm.org>>;netconf<netconf@ietf.org< > m > > ailto:netconf@ietf.org>> > > 主题: Re: [Netconf] comments on > > draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12 > > 时间: 2018-06-20 07:42:09 > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Eric Voit (evoit) > > <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf. > > org>> > > wrote: > > > From: Kent Watsen, June 19, 2018 5:58 PM > > > > > > > > > > An event record is not necessarily a YANG notification, as > > > > > > > the event record's payload might not be driven by the result > > > > > > > of a YANG statement. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't get this. Can you give an example of when an event > > > > > > record is not defined as a YANG "notification"? > > > > > > > > > > Why do we care about non-YANG-defined notification messages? How > > > > > are systems expected to interoperate on such opaque data blobs? > > > > > > > > Opaque data blobs is what RFC-5277 can carry. The WG asked to > > > > update > > > > RFC-5277 using the improved control plane of YANG-Push. This is > > > > what makes up the documents in LC. > > > > > > > > <snip/> > > > > > > > > The drafts in LC adds RPC / signaling mechanisms. The opaque data > > > > blobs are > > > not in scope. > > > > > > RFC 5277 may have allowed opaque data blocks, but I think that we > > > should try to bury that support now. Can this document say that all > > > notifications MUST be defined by a YANG-defined "notification" > > > statement? Could this break in compatibility be advertised somehow? > > > > > > MUST be defined in YANG is a bit strong. > > I would say SHOULD be defined in YANG, for the "NETCONF" stream. > > Other streams do not have to use YANG notification statements. > > > > > > Andy > > > > I had always seen as subscribed-notifications as a control plane > > improvement to RFC-5277. Explicitly excluding XSD, SYSLOG, vendor > > structures, etc. seems unnecessary. > > > > I can ping a few people who have legacy implementations which might be > > closer to this than I. Narrowing the scope in this way should be > > broadly discussed. > > > > > > It would be helpful to get some comments on > > > > draft-ietf-netconf-notification- > > > messages. > > > > This draft address improvements to the opaque data blobs. > > > > > > Perhaps tease us with a little more detail? ;) > > > > Pretty much all the common headers in Section 3 and the message > > bundling in Section 4 are both improvements which are relevant to this > > thread. Tianran likely will have some new headers he wants added as > > part of the multi-line card work. > > > > Eric > > > > > Kent > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Netconf mailing list > > Netconf@ietf.org<mailto:Netconf@ietf.org> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf > > > _______________________________________________ > Netconf mailing list > Netconf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Tianran Zhou
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Andy Bierman
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Kent Watsen
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Henk Birkholz
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Juergen Schoenwaelder
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Alexander Clemm
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Kent Watsen
- [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscrib… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Martin Bjorklund
- Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subs… Eric Voit (evoit)