[netconf] Issues with draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-04

Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> Tue, 16 November 2021 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <andy@yumaworks.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 ED66F3A0688 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 19:45:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=yumaworks-com.20210112.gappssmtp.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 oOgTS3u5u6hV for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 19:45:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22d.google.com (mail-lj1-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E45B43A0687 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 19:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22d.google.com with SMTP id d11so40156183ljg.8 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 19:45:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yumaworks-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XVjPyHo5/XaZ3VuP1KDSyuN6BKxR3pNW/nq2Nss8iTQ=; b=FE4i33miiBfvc3WCp/y12qYeac400HIhIGaxFSVI+Dt6k6H5SnUQeZuZAakRang6PA OHzlMWVclU5ecDc0Bz2nIBTXvdkah2u9mH6X7kzML+/FlS2nbWtqkM3BLyIw5gMhQbKS Jh2EEcHEDwtrziPycHBX1iuy3t7P/VetGWiLrnox8+00ORjjDHy6XZhw2nLSzvGOvlpj UD4Tf88XoIzulQ2YliODCwRO1GTqxKzqHG6d9AlZZZlLQcVGaDIvfwQtrS8J+NW01BAT Ku5x5fQLCvCv5grTgsA90gd6KPdMNgRp/YjiLzkQ4qaYkLxzFOVbrgrq1b4uKFotgKgy 9tGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XVjPyHo5/XaZ3VuP1KDSyuN6BKxR3pNW/nq2Nss8iTQ=; b=7MY842jZNG6h38BMMAOXOhC2ddg983kaFzK/EkwqZLN1Mfr4cGMz4FGwLzcOjlIZI4 5OO3vlGMu6Cwfvwszs+R7q0xGAlrkSSwjqP111Zs8l50SgabZg9NU3DrdrytDoX1xJ0N NKfGtvGP6MT/vPm9yN2HTJsNqjSd9hWFkyzXSULBeZXj5fk0+mcooHa7ySpE6UR7rAnI a661WA7dPyQ030tXW4zvJIS2UfgivWmPFiE/Yg9oN01MTHmQCdHXmCrvBbu5/1Yv1CPs xj5G0GuF4G984kPDh1zuTJTKa313BIj/pkr8PcDFekn0ukqpzAKESsEg4nPIVFItqQ8y YGuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533HujBcl4UPChhWbhtiz6cq897He7570AnUIeJEJyobr/JgrUo7 MDg7BEZFLwsZYmsmYn9t/izLk1PipfVF+Ffx0zb7oBlDB3MpAg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwgr11zujiAQoxyn8FnhSYj1esl8SsBryEAEvxxdqn09V5/cFVwNQnoLkV2iXFLOfdKlwYr+6Mt1POO5JSz2NU=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8248:: with SMTP id j8mr3838933ljh.1.1637034329519; Mon, 15 Nov 2021 19:45:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2021 19:45:18 -0800
Message-ID: <CABCOCHTnEh-d00ZDumUFZcwEjim3GCrgR85-+8n_g=XyEhXQbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Netconf <netconf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b24bbc05d0dfc16e"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/rQvlDx-GSQszqxxrei92f3nukbo>
Subject: [netconf] Issues with draft-ietf-netconf-udp-notif-04
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: NETCONF WG 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: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 03:45:35 -0000

Hi,

I am wondering if there implementations of this draft already.
IMO there are problems with in that prevent reasonable and
optimal implementations.

1) Use of UDP as the Application Message Framing
UDP is a transport protocol.  Tightly coupling one
NETCONF notification message to one UDP frame (+ fragments)
is not very optimal.

1A) wastes space in the UDP frame if the NETCONF notification
    happens to be short
1B) imposes an application-level max-message-size

2) Not Efficient for Streaming Servers (no Message Chunking)
The application framing in NETCONF and RESTCONF (HTTP) is not
coupled to any transport protocol. Instead, a sender may emit as
many message chunks as desired. This is how a streaming server works.
Content comes from many different sources and it is sent on-the-fly
in chunks, instead of constructing large replies.

    - Application framing allows multiple notifications in one UDP frame
    - Application framing does not need a max-message-size.
      Streaming servers often do not know the size of the data that will be
sent
      in a notification.

Q1) Should proprietary encoding be used to support application-layer framing
       or should the standard support it?

3) Protocol Message Encoding for CBOR
The NETCONF notification message is not modelled in YANG.
This is an open issue for YANG to CBOR encoding.
https://github.com/core-wg/yang-cbor/issues/96

The "notification" and "eventTime" elements do not have YANG definitions.
SID assignments for these elements will be needed.
This draft is the likely place for these SID assignment requests to
the IESG and IANA.

4) Subscription-ID Missing from Header
It is quite possible for one message generator to create
messages for multiple subscriptions.  The subscription-ID
will be needed to dispatch notifications to subscribers correctly.
The Observation-Domain-ID is not sufficient.

5) Private Encoding Option does not seem interoperable
The "Enc. Descr" field is completely opaque.
This field could be structured to provide the "ET number space owner"
e.g, urn [wsp description]


Andy