IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <alexander.clemm@huawei.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 DAC451310AE for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:39:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 982CfKQ6mR_a for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19285130E07 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:39:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 57A4FDE9D15B; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:39:16 +0100 (IST)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.382.0; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 18:39:18 +0100
Received: from SJCEML521-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.141]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.125]) with mapi id 14.03.0382.000; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 10:39:16 -0700
From: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
To: Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com>, "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
CC: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "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/nTP5uT1VwdzTU2cEQAJ+CXbrKRVz9AAgAC3XYCAAEcoAIAAEmGAgAAJooCABrN1gIAABFCAgAAUYgD//5bkkIAA9I2AgACO9YCAAAdKAIABEdsAgACV3YCAABa6gIAAxcaAgABilgCABuq5AIAAGpAAgAACL4CAALXkkA==
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 17:39:14 +0000
Message-ID: <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EB1994A@sjceml521-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <20180613160206.gkutjhxigdxpv2uz@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <20180614.102216.2199378020340361225.mbj@tail-f.com> <f6f66d0c0a444f2bb0fc770082450037@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180614.203959.786029239464099510.mbj@tail-f.com> <20180615062751.obzdeco6oka3ekue@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de> <ac1a7a7480da46d4841fcd1bd0ea4ddc@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <A0ECF1FF-FF88-4BE3-A722-D681B9CF6F78@juniper.net> <03a8630197c04815a3aa6d85d667f678@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <CABCOCHSQvaJ+YZT-rGnmoR=pOFXAEGYPSUg4z_9W2-fopsFTYg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABCOCHSQvaJ+YZT-rGnmoR=pOFXAEGYPSUg4z_9W2-fopsFTYg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.209.216.229]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0EB1994Asjceml521mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/soWe3d6X9BV69xr-p_YI1EBW-BY>
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, 20 Jun 2018 17:39:27 -0000

+1

This is what has been intended (and I believe we have been in agreement on) all along.

There is no reason to narrow the scope.  We have a model/mechanism to manage and control the subscriptions, and then separately from that we have the actual message streams.  Because the former is defined in YANG does not mean the content of the latter has to be,  although in many cases of course it will be.

--- Alex

From: Andy Bierman [mailto:andy@yumaworks.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2018 4:41 PM
...
  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.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email