IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Fri, 15 June 2018 06:27 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
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 C1ACE130DC3 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:27:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 0DAF6Q2FWl1G for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:27:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from anna.localdomain (anna.eecs.jacobs-university.de [IPv6:2001:638:709:5::7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C1C130DC2 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by anna.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1EB08223C95D; Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:27:51 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 08:27:51 +0200
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: evoit@cisco.com, alexander.clemm@huawei.com, alex@clemm.org, netconf@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180615062751.obzdeco6oka3ekue@anna.jacobs.jacobs-university.de>
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
Mail-Followup-To: evoit@cisco.com, alexander.clemm@huawei.com, alex@clemm.org, netconf@ietf.org
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20180614.203959.786029239464099510.mbj@tail-f.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180512
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/y55Tzgx3Q-U8aTotIsfP-ll8V4U>
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: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 06:27:55 -0000

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 08:39:59PM +0200, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

> > An event record is not necessarily a YANG notification, as the event
> > record's payload might not be driven by the result of a YANG
> > statement.
> 
> I don't get this.  Can you give an example of when an event record is
> not defined as a YANG "notification"?

Why do we care about non-YANG-defined notification messages? How are
systems expected to interoperate on such opaque data blobs? Perhaps
there is a need to reduce complexity in order to get something that is
coherent and consistent and at the end interoperable. The very goal of
IETF standards is to enable interoperable implementations; it is not a
goal to define a framework that allows multiple non-interoperable
implementations to declare compliance to a standard.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <https://www.jacobs-university.de/>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email