Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12

> 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