Re: [Netconf] comments on draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-12
"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 13 June 2018 15:36 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 199F1127148 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:36:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 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_HIGH=-0.01, 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 KmwqYSyxB7LO for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CA40912785F for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 08:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=6706; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1528904163; x=1530113763; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=CZuh3+LlS5W8DSiqI4nkkqao5vup92/2oJS5tVvCZfQ=; b=NRJ9ozKFq45fNIOYBtAsQ/eBPCVvrvjcsTXDL0uqBXXENa5Nw4DC4Fn6 5i6+/nspRvITFgIOSkmkfwIhIAbb8cbcYL3guEsWh2s7wRvhb6M70G4vO P1WnQEI4Nqhpud+YWMZutlnNfC+Bn5NRhPNSQxVV3pyK21HcJI7bENVvT I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0C8AAAFOSFb/5ldJa1dGQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNIgWEoCotzjGmBf5RpgXgLhGwCgjchNBgBAgEBAQEBAQJtKIUoAQEBAQIBOj0CBQcEAgEIDgMEAQEBDREJBzIUCQgCBAENBQiFEwiuQYhHgWiIS4FUP4QbhHoxhR4CmQoJAo5xgUeDfod3h2uJKwIREwGBJB04gVJwFYJ+giEXjhdvjhCBGgEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,219,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="407774972"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Jun 2018 15:36:02 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (xch-rtp-013.cisco.com [64.101.220.153]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5DFa27Q032664 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:02 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:36:01 -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; Wed, 13 Jun 2018 11:36:01 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "alexander.clemm@huawei.com" <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
CC: "kwatsen@juniper.net" <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "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//v8BQAAsePAAAAeTiAAAPiUWAAAIQEmA=
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:01 +0000
Message-ID: <e61d9a8666964a6ca3a7900c71e4f4d2@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <b44492127969401f8b72f2e3dd67d58e@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <4A685312-E065-4DF6-9BB1-BCC52947F1CA@juniper.net> <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EB17F84@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com> <20180613.090421.188030980179358538.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180613.090421.188030980179358538.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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/saVpfpyaUdHK7QdO76htKw9W37s>
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: Wed, 13 Jun 2018 15:36:09 -0000
Each of the terms used are different. While they all are defined in the first document they are used, let me paraphrase the meanings of the definitions... Event - something that happened Event record - the recorded details of a single event Update record - one or more datastore node updates <notification> - a structure defined in RFC5277 which is as a wrapper which contains an event record. A <notification> can exist without any active subscription. "notification" statement - a structure defined in RFC-7950 section 7.16 which allows the definition of event record types specific to a YANG module. The results of the a YANG "notification" statement are encoded in a <notification>. Notification message - a message intended for a specific subscription receiver which includes one or more <notification>. A notification message will have undergone any security/content filtering on embedded <notification> as appropriate for that receiver. Per the discussion below, I see an update record being a specialized type of event record. For YANG push, the 'event' is driven by the update trigger: i.e., either the expiration of a periodic timer (for periodic subscriptions), or a change to the datastore (on-change subscription). More below.... > From: Martin Bjorklund, June 13, 2018 3:04 AM > > Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> wrote: > > Two quick replies inline, <ALEX> > > --- Alex > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent > > > Watsen > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:45 PM > > > To: Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com>; Martin Bjorklund > > > <mbj@tail-f.com>; alex@clemm.org > > > Cc: netconf@ietf.org > > > Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on > > > draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications- > > > 12 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Sure, but can YP import the "Event Record" term from SN? > > > >> > > > >> Sure. It imports other terms. Alex, do you want to bring it in? > > > >> > > > > <ALEX> Why should we bring it into YP? We basically don't use the > > term there. We use "update record" (which we do define). </ALEX> > > Alex, see the previous emails in this thread for context. The initial problem > was the counter "pushed-notifications" in subscribed-notifications. Eric > suggested to rename it and describe it > as: > > leaf count-sent { > type yang:counter64; > config false; > description > "The number of event records sent to the receiver. The > count is initialized when a dynamic subscription is > established, or when a configured subscription > transitions to the valid state."; > > The question is what this leaf really counts. Does it count the number of > <notification> messages sent? The number of "event records"? Does it include > "update records"? It should count the number of event records. The reason is driven by Martin's point below: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages. With this draft, a notification message may contain more than one event record. Also with this draft, a notification message may contain a single event record could have been sent to serve the needs of multiple subscriptions. For these reasons, post RFC-5277, having a count the notification messages won't provide any per-receiver insight into what was missed/delivered for a particular subscription. > (Does this change if we have a mechanism to bundle several event records into > a single <notification> message, as has been proposed?) > > > > > > >> Also, I think that the definition could be improved. It currently reads: > > > >> > > > >> Event record: A set of information detailing an event. > > > > > > > > Yes. But the word 'event' here is itself defined as: > > > > > > > > Event: An occurrence of something that may be of interest. Examples > > > > include a configuration change, a fault, a change in status, crossing > > > > a threshold, or an external input to the system. > > > > > > > >Reviewers have liked separation of the event itself from the record about > it. > > > > > > > > > I'm okay with separation. On one hand, it seems like common > > > English, but it might be good to have it well-defined in this draft. > > > Still it seems that the definition could be improved, maybe by contrasting it > to an event? > > > One is the what happened, the other a record about what happened... > > > > > > > > <ALEX> The separation makes sense and I think is something we always > > had in mind. I am not clear what is needed. We currently have "event > > record", which is distinguished from the "event" itself, and the > > "notification message", in addition to "event stream". (We could > > rename "notification message" to "event notification message", which > > woudl become rather lengthy; we did not call it "event message" since > > there might be notification messages that notify of > > updates, which are different from events.) > > In short, I am not convinced that any changes are needed; I do think > > we have captured the right terms; but of course if you would like to > > see alternative definition text please make a suggestion. > > As Juergen noted you have "event record" and "notification message" > defined as new terms in subscribed-notifications. It is not clear how this > relates to YANG's "notification" statement and RFC 6241/5277 <notification> > message. Hopefully the text at the beginning highlights the needed differentiation. I can also place the above definitions of <notification> and "notification" statement into the subscribed-notifications terminology definitions if this clears things up. > I *think* that YANG's "notification" statement defines an "event record", Yes > and that your term "notification message" is the same as > 6241/5277 "notification" (message). Yes. The reason to differentiate the terms now is that when draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages completes, the term "notification message" will be able to refer to both the RFC-5277 and the draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages mechanisms for encapsulating event records. > Also, I think that an "update record" is represented as one of "push-update" > and "push-change-update" YANG notifications. So aren't these "event > records"? I.e., an "update record" is a special case of an "event record"? Yes. Eric > > /martin
- 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)