Re: [Netconf] yang-push-17 on-change subscriptions

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

"Eric Voit \(evoit\)" <evoit=[e-mail]> wrote:
> A dampening period is optional

How do you mean?  There is no if-feature on the "dampening-period",
and no text indicating that a server can reject a request with a
"dampening-period".  AFAICT from the draft, the dampening feature must
be implemented by a server.


/martin


(based on your earlier comments).  And
> the dampening period is per subscription rather than per object.
> Cisco doesn’t have code at this time for dampened changes.
> 
> Eric
> 
> From: Netconf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Andy Bierman
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2018 1:59 PM
> To: Netconf <[e-mail]>
> Subject: [Netconf] yang-push-17 on-change subscriptions
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> I would like to know if anybody has implemented on-change
> subscriptions yet.
> The implementation requirements seem very complex when you consider
> that every single data node instance in the subscription has its own
> dampening timer.
> 
> Edits are not reported sequentially as they occur.
> Instead every node is tracked and the change may only reported
> after the dampening period expires.  It seems quite possible that
> nodes can interact (e.g., leafrefs) so that reporting edit Y can
> depend on previous edit X, which cannot be reported until the
> end of its dampening period, in the future. So edit Y will be reported
> before X,
> and the patch will fail to validate, because the current state of X is
> incorrect
> on the receiver..
> 
> All the state tracking on the server is expensive to implement,
> and I am not really sure it actually helps the client that much.
> 
> 
> Andy
>