[netconf] issue #2 draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif (discover capabilities)

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.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 3DED0120959 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:57:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 dt-rd6MX9eFE for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334871208FF for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 07:57:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (h-4-44.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [158.174.4.44]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1DD01AE018B for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:57:18 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 16:57:18 +0100
Message-Id: <20191119.165718.454243308165476160.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 25.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/tOBB3lOC0KAer-4PI_gQ9VjRSY8>
Subject: [netconf] issue #2 draft-ietf-netconf-https-notif (discover capabilities)
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, 19 Nov 2019 15:57:22 -0000

Hi,

For the encoding I think we have four options:

1)  define one fixed encoding

2)  support multiple encodings and let the identity https derive from
    sn:configurable-encoding.  this ties into the mechanism defined in
    RFC 8529.  requires a "default encoding".

3)  support multiple encodings and do not derive from
    sn:configurable-encoding.  define a discovery mechanism that must
    be used to dynamically figure out which encoding to use.

4)  combination of 2+3; make it configurable, but let the default
    encoding be dynamic


I think it is quite clear that we don't want to do 1.  People have
expressed requirements for both text-based and binary encodings.

To discover the encoding, isn't this possible with standard HTTP?
Googling a bit showed an old I-D for an Accept-Post header that the
server could return in response to OPTIONS; this could have been
useful.  (Hmm, it seems it is actually
defined:https://www.iana.org/assignments/message-headers/message-headers.xhtml)
Perhaps someone with HTTP knowledge can recommend a solution?

As for the format of capabilities in general, I think a normal config
false YANG model will work.  If we use OPTIONS (or GET on some related
uri) the client can send an Accept header to indicate which format it
prefers for this config false data as usual
("application/yang-data+xml" or "application/yang-data+json" or some
other media type for binary formats)


/martin