Re: [Netconf] IETF 101 SN Question 1: Proper designation of receiver

["Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]>]

> From: Martin Bjorklund, June 26, 2018 4:11 AM
> 
> "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > From: Kent Watsen, June 25, 2018 3:43 PM
> > >
> > > >> >> <kent-orig> Okay, glad to see that you embrace using
> > > >> >> ietf-netconf-server, rather than ietf-netconf-client.  And
> > > >> >> I'll grant you that it's infinitely more likely that the
> > > >> >> ietf-netconf-server module would be implemented (i.e., the
> > > >> >> top-level /ncs:netconf-server container exists), more so than
> > > >> >> the ietf-netconf-client module would be implemented.  The WG
> > > >> >> created the top-level /ncc:netconf- client container more for
> > > >> >> the sake of symmetry than for having a use-case for when it
> > > >> >> would be implemented.  I think the question to ask is, is it
> > > >> possible that a device wants to use SN but doesn't *implement*
> > > >> ietf-netconf- server?
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <Eric> Yes, this will be possible.  Reasons would include:
> > > >> >> alternative
> > > >> transports
> > > >> >> (COMI, UDP), HTTP2 configured subscriptions (which might use
> > > >> >> ietf-restconf- server), or no need for a publisher to include
> > > >> >> the configured subscriptions feature.
> > > >> >>
> > > >> >> <Kent> I should've be more specific: is it possible that a
> > > >> >> device would use netconf-notif (where your leafref is defined)
> > > >> >> but not implement
> > > >> ietf-netconf-
> > > >> >> server?  Similarly, restconf-notif would presumably have a
> > > >> >> leafref to
> > > >> >> ietf-
> > > >> >> restconf-server, etc.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Yes.  Cases would include:
> > > >> >(a) platform doesn't support configured subscriptions
> > > >> >(b) vendor has not yet implemented ietf-netconf-server, and uses
> > > >> >something
> > > >> else.
> > > >>
> > > >> (a) is this a valid case?  - I thought this conversion only
> > > >> regards configured subscriptions.  No leafref or equivalent would
> > > >> be needed to support a dynamic subscription.  Right?
> > > >
> > > > Correct.  But your question was "can you use netconf-notif without
> > > > a leafref
> > > to...".
> > > > Needing both drafts is absolutely the case for dynamic
> > > > subscription support, and ietf-netconf-server would not be needed here.
> > >
> > > I read the above a few times, but I'm having a hard time
> > > understanding it.  Can say it differently or provide an example?
> >
> > Dynamic subscriptions over NETCONF requires
> > draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications.  With these
> > deployments, there there is no call home, there is no configuration,
> > and there need be no ietf-netconf-server.yang leafref (or use of
> > ietf-netconf-server.yang grouping).
> >
> > > >> (b) this seems like a possibility, but then I think this make the
> > > >> case for why a leafref to the global *conf servers definitions
> > > >> won't always
> > > work.
> > > >
> > > > Agree that nothing here will always work.  Deployments commonly
> > > > will have a heterogeneous mixture of model ecosystem models.
> > > >
> > > > This actually makes a *very* strong case for why the leafref
> > > > should be added as an augmentation from the *conf-server models.
> > > > That way leafref augmentations are explicitly tied to the actual
> > > > implementation of the
> > > model against which they refer.
> > >
> > > Not in the *conf-server models, the augments go into the *conf-notif
> > > models, I assume that is what you meant.
> >
> > My assertion is a good solution would be updating
> > ietf-netconf-server.yang per what is below.  Note that an answer even
> > further below regarding the sharing of a single NETCONF session across
> > multiple subscriptions and typical RFC6241 protocol interactions is
> > assumed.  But we could also insert your ietf-netconf-server.yang
> > grouping just as effectively where the leafref is seen.
> >
> > Anyway here are the following changes which would be made to
> > ietf-netconf-server.yang
> >
> >   import ietf-subscribed-notifications { prefix sn; }
> >   import ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications { prefix nsn; }
> >
> >   feature subscription-support {
> >     description
> >         "The 'subscription-support' feature indicates that the NETCONF server
> >          supports configured subscriptions over call-home connections.";
> >        reference
> >         "RFC xxxx: Customized Subscriptions to a Publisher's Event Streams";
> >      }
> >
> >  augment "/sn:subscriptions/sn:subscription/sn:receivers/sn:receiver" {
> >    if-feature "subscription-support";
> >    when 'derived-from(../../../transport, "nsn:netconf")';
> >    description
> >       "This augmentation allows NETCONF specific parameters to be exposed
> >       for a receiver.";
> >     leaf netconf-endpoint {
> >       type leafref {
> >         path "/ncs:netconf-server/ncs:call-home/ncs:netconf-client/ncs:name";
> >       }
> >       description
> >         "Remote client which need to initiate the NETCONF transport if an
> >         existing NETCONF session from that client is not available.";
> >     }
> >   }
> >
> > With such a construct, it is impossible to add a leafref (or grouping)
> > within ietf-subscribed-notifications unless ietf-netconf-server.yang
> > exists.
> >
> > > >> This is why I
> > > >> was thinking before that your modules might themselves *use* the
> > > >> *conf- server-groupings (while pruning out unneeded parts, e.g.,
> > > >> the "listen" subtree), so that it's independent of what the
> > > >> system has implemented at the global level.
> > > >
> > > > If you have 500 subscriptions, you then have to populate 500
> > > > identical
> > > groupings.
> > >
> > > No, you have one grouping, with 500
> > > /netconf-server/call-home/netconf-client
> > > instances.
> >
> > Yes.  But I don't know why someone would voluntarily do add 500
> > repeated elements to a configuration datastore.
> >
> > > >  And yes this is possible.  But it makes the part of me which
> > > > likes Normalized  data quite uncomfortable.
> > > >
> > > > But as I said before, it the WG wants such redundancy, fine.
> > > > Either choice need not impact decisions as part of LC.
> > >
> > > I don't believe that is a WG-preference thing, so much as an outcome
> > > of the current design, which is that each receiver for each
> > > subscription has its own state-machine and protocol messages.  There
> > > is no sharing; no two receives can use the same RFC 6241 NETCONF
> > > session, which effectively translates to each receiver having its
> > > own /netconf-server/call-home/netconf-client
> > > instance,
> > > right?
> >
> > This is incorrect.  Protocol and state-machine messages have been
> > decoupled from the transport session.
> >
> > I am not sure why you think that subscriptions are unable to use a
> > common NETCONF session?  Implementations of dynamic NETCONF
> > subscriptions have been doing this for years.  Subscription
> > multiplexing of configured and dynamic subscriptions over a common
> > transport is a pre-requisite for solution scalability.
> 
> I don't think muliplexing of configured and dynamic subscriptions over a single
> session is possible.  
>
> If this is the intention of the current design, the document
> needs to explain how this is supposed to be done.

What is your concern?

> Multiplexing multiple configured subscriptions over a single transport session
> could be possible, but the document doesn't mention this.
> Again, if this is the intention, it needs to be properly described in the
> document.

What is missing?  The subscribed-notification draft section 2.5.1 and Figure 9 describe how each receiver is pushed their own state notifications.  (I.e., the state machine is per-receiver.  It is not per-subscription, nor is it per-transport.)

> This said, "session sharing" can be acheived with the current design, as well as
> with the alternative design where the protocol is defined per receiver rather
> than per subscription.  

Agree.  Any issues with NETCONF transport multiplexing of subscriptions should be independent of the receiver YANG model.

> But it won't be interoperable unless it is described.

Likely NETCONF specific concerns would land in the NETCONF-notif.  I am happy to make any needed clarifications.

Eric

> /martin