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

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> Wed, 20 June 2018 15:47 UTC

Return-Path: <evoit@cisco.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 BE80B1310C6 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:47:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.511
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.511 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 BrmIaprUJqaP for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B45212F1AC for <netconf@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 08:47:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2984; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1529509631; x=1530719231; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=Ww6E6OTCorQanKmJcM/yiiThzOwUPzI2e41rfxlWqy0=; b=WNMylscdhtA2DCj4odeOqBGJZ4SjLEbCD+xuBb4NjmJsYj2OrzlgvbXR 82ZGZ5PPh59WddZ1CMraCv4Pio6jBwW2C7oEbW+Vpx2BElZH1Kb/TiSP/ TAJUIZ4C11UrvmjVeK+LBeQ+VDpun2bvhHskU5AsJcAoliWd/p8+tku+m I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: =?us-ascii?q?A0C7AADHdipb/4MNJK1bGQEBAQEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQEBAQcBAQEBAYNJYn8oCotzjD+CApUAgXkLGAuEA0YCgnchNBgBAgEBAQE?= =?us-ascii?q?BAQJtHAyFKAEBAQMBAQE4NAQFAgULAgEIDgcDHhAnCyUCBAENBQiDHoF3CA+?= =?us-ascii?q?uC4hGaAWIVIFUP4QbgxgBAYc2ApkkCQKPBo1JkTgCERMBgSQdOIFScBU7gme?= =?us-ascii?q?LEYU+b45PgRoBAQ?=
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.51,248,1526342400"; d="scan'208";a="132320132"
Received: from alln-core-1.cisco.com ([173.36.13.131]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 20 Jun 2018 15:47:10 +0000
Received: from XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (xch-rtp-012.cisco.com [64.101.220.152]) by alln-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id w5KFl9YO003109 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:47:10 GMT
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com (64.101.220.153) by XCH-RTP-012.cisco.com (64.101.220.152) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:47:09 -0400
Received: from xch-rtp-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) by XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com ([64.101.220.153]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 20 Jun 2018 11:47:09 -0400
From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>
To: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>, "kwatsen@juniper.net" <kwatsen@juniper.net>
CC: "j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de" <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "alexander.clemm@huawei.com" <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>, "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/nTB7wTodISdV0qlE/sux4czBKRU8kawgAFinID///zC4IAAXMiA//++zTCABv5KgP//v8BQAAsePAAAAeTiAAAPiUWAAAIQEmAAKpK66wAP4zmQAA4QCIAAGLjSgAADVwtwAOZS1gAABZBdwAAD1lOAABl3aAAAB1RSMA==
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:47:09 +0000
Message-ID: <f5716c043e3444d99424523b7f0e59cc@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <A0ECF1FF-FF88-4BE3-A722-D681B9CF6F78@juniper.net> <03a8630197c04815a3aa6d85d667f678@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <956FD389-752F-4907-995F-1493F4EDC069@juniper.net> <20180620.163644.1720895466004628492.mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <20180620.163644.1720895466004628492.mbj@tail-f.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.118.56.228]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/z_aAKZlcdC3IQRbgImnOEXiZf-0>
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 15:47:14 -0000

> From: Martin Bjorklund, June 20, 2018 10:37 AM
> 
> Kent Watsen <kwatsen@juniper.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I had always seen as subscribed-notifications as a control plane
> improvement to RFC-5277.
> >
> > Let hope so  ;)
> >
> >
> >
> > > Explicitly excluding XSD, SYSLOG, vendor structures, etc. seems
> unnecessary.
> >
> > XSD is another DML, maybe you meant XML?
> >
> > SYSLOG is a protocol, I think you mean to say that folks might
> > encapsulate syslog messages inside a <notification> element.  This is
> > fine, I suggest defining a notification called something like
> > "syslog-message" that is essentially a leaf of type "string".
> >
> > Vendor structures are like Syslog, they can be even be binary if the
> > leaf is of type "binary".
> >
> > I'm not trying to exclude anything, what gets excluded?
> 
> I agree with Kent.  5277 was pre-YANG, so it could not be tied to the
> "notification" message.  Even 5277 could not transport any data - it had to be
> encoded in XML.  This new draft is more flexible since it can be used with XML
> and JSON (and other encodings) - *because* it transports YANG notifications.

Right now, draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages is framed in a way which just supports YANG notifications (see "anydata notification-contents").   When people move to this new one-way notification, it would seem a natural time to impose the placement of a "must be in a YANG notification wrapper" constraint. (Assuming we would want to do this.)  

Placing such a constraint on the new one-way notification would then leave the subscribed-notifications control plane as supporting any existing/embedded 5277 one-way notifications. 

Eric


> /martin
> 
> 
> > > I can ping a few people who have legacy implementations which might
> > > be closer to this than I.   Narrowing the scope in this way should
> > > be broadly discussed.
> >
> > But is it narrowing the scope any? (see above)
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > It would be helpful to get some comments on draft-ietf-netconf-
> > > > > notification-messages.
> > > > > This draft address improvements to the opaque data blobs.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps tease us with a little more detail?  ;)
> > >
> > > Pretty much all the common headers in Section 3 and the message
> > > bundling in Section 4 are both improvements which are relevant to
> > > this thread. Tianran likely will have some new headers he wants
> > > added as part of the multi-line card work.
> >
> > I don't see the relation to opaque data here. The "notification-contents"
> > description says "Encapsulates objects following YANG's
> > notification-stmt grammar of RFC-7950 section 14."  That doesn't sound
> > like it would be very opaque.
> >
> >
> > Kent
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Netconf mailing list
> > Netconf@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
> >