Re: [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01

Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com> Wed, 23 August 2017 02:22 UTC

Return-Path: <zhoutianran@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 B11D31327EC for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:22:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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 Kl8dSEm40m-r for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 852641323BF for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Aug 2017 19:22:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DTY80887; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 02:22:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from NKGEML412-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.73) by lhreml701-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.42) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 03:22:18 +0100
Received: from NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com ([fe80::a54a:89d2:c471:ff]) by nkgeml412-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.73]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 23 Aug 2017 10:22:08 +0800
From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutianran@huawei.com>
To: Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net>, "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
CC: "Zhengguangying (Walker)" <zhengguangying@huawei.com>
Thread-Topic: WG adoption poll draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
Thread-Index: AQHTGsmq2KiStu0LpUC+dtqUvYwssaKRLG+A
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2017 02:22:03 +0000
Message-ID: <BBA82579FD347748BEADC4C445EA0F21A2417AED@NKGEML515-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <F94D3EAE-F8C1-4CB7-B0E8-CC9E4F795C71@juniper.net>
In-Reply-To: <F94D3EAE-F8C1-4CB7-B0E8-CC9E4F795C71@juniper.net>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.156.116]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090201.599CE6DB.013A, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: f065eabb243cc58f777f6c85e9cd779b
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/xnhpbig4odoFHM0mxQcmzj9hAn0>
Subject: Re: [Netconf] WG adoption poll draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
X-BeenThere: netconf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 23 Aug 2017 02:22:24 -0000

Hi,

I support this document to be adopted by the WG.
The other call for adoption document draft-zheng-netconf-udp-pub-channel-00 will refer this work for the message header design.
So I would like to review and contribute if it is adopted by the WG.

Here are some initial comments:
1. I do not understand why the document separate the two formats for single record and bundled records. In principle, the bundled message can represent 
the general cases. Maybe you are considering some optimization. But I did not see it.

2. You include the "dscp" in the message header. How can this be used in upper transport layer? It's an IP layer parameter.

3. You have a "record-count? uint16" in the bundled record message. Why this is useful? When decoding the records, the count is discovered automatically. And it won't help for decoding the records. Alternatively I think a "message length" would help. The decoder can know how much data to feed.

4. You have "message-generator-id" and "observation-domain-id". I think both of them are used to indicate the source of the data. Then why we need two?

5. In what scope is the subscription-id unique, per device, per receiver, or globally? It's better to indicate.

Cheers,
Tianran

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent Watsen
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2017 6:06 AM
> To: netconf@ietf.org
> Subject: [Netconf] WG adoption poll
> draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> This is start of a two-week poll on making the following draft a NETCONF
> working group document:
> 
>   draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01 [1]
> 
> Please send email to the list indicating "yes/support" or "no/do not support".
> If indicating no, please state your reservations with the document.  If yes,
> please also feel free to provide comments you'd like to see addressed once
> the document is a WG document.
> 
> 
> [1]
> https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-voit-netconf-notification-messages-01
> 
> 
> Thank you,
> Kent (and Mahesh)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Netconf mailing list
> Netconf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf