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: =?us-ascii?q?A0DkAACkkStb/5FdJa1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJYn8oCoNviASMPoIFlQCBeQsYC4QDRgIXgmQhNBgBAgE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQJtHAyFKAEBAQECAQEBIRE6CQIFCwIBBgIOBwMCAiMDAgICJQsUARA?= =?us-ascii?q?CBAENBQiDHoF3CA+OPJtHghyIR22BC4dJgVQ/gQ+DD4MYAQECgXWCaoJVApk?= =?us-ascii?q?mCQKPBoFHjAKHcoNchWsCERMBgSQdOIFScBU7gmcJiwiFPm8BjxGBGgEB?=
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