IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-wang-netconf-adaptive-subscription

"zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn" <zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn> Tue, 18 August 2020 16:24 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn>
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 BC4303A0EB2 for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.889
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.889 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, 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 FTcrlF9z9mUp for <netconf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from chinatelecom.cn (prt-mail.chinatelecom.cn [42.123.76.227]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D60DF3A0EB6 for <netconf@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:39 -0700 (PDT)
HMM_SOURCE_IP: 172.18.0.218:40187.889211252
HMM_ATTACHE_NUM: 0000
HMM_SOURCE_TYPE: SMTP
Received: from clientip-116.232.12.105?logid-78b5adeb570848ceb8b8e2cdb5615ed5 (unknown [172.18.0.218]) by chinatelecom.cn (HERMES) with SMTP id A71D62800A7; Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:24:37 +0800 (CST)
X-189-SAVE-TO-SEND: 31100443@chinatelecom.cn
Received: from ([172.18.0.218]) by App0025 with ESMTP id 78b5adeb570848ceb8b8e2cdb5615ed5 for netconf@ietf.org; Wed Aug 19 00:24:38 2020
X-Transaction-ID: 78b5adeb570848ceb8b8e2cdb5615ed5
X-filter-score: filter<0>
X-Real-From: zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn
X-Receive-IP: 172.18.0.218
X-MEDUSA-Status: 0
Sender: zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2020 00:24:39 +0800
From: "zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn" <zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn>
To: "netconf@ietf.org" <netconf@ietf.org>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 8025BB06-B675-4C20-982B-3148AD9EDA68
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.2.16.188[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <20200819002438832957110@chinatelecom.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart458214662827_=----"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netconf/zmX4OZCdjcLanaBa9xc8rY8Mc5A>
Subject: Re: [netconf] Adoption-suitability for draft-wang-netconf-adaptive-subscription
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, 18 Aug 2020 16:24:44 -0000

Dear all,

I read the draft, regarding the two questions, the comments are as follows:

1. Is the problem important for the NETCONF WG to solve?
I believe that it is important to allows the publisher to adjust the volume of telemetry data sent to the subscribers by changing data collection rate when both publishers and subscribers support multiple update intervals or data collection rates. This will reduce overload on the receivers on one hand, getting more telemetry data for network failure diagnosis on the other hand. And I believe that the NETCONF WG is the appropriate WG for this work. RFC8639 and RFC8640 provide a good basis for this work.

2. Is the draft a suitable basis for the work?
I think this draft is mature enough and provide a solid basis for starting point.

Best regards,


Yuan ZHANG 张园 

China Telecom Research Institute 中国电信研究院
Tel: +86-18918588990
Email: zhangy666@chinatelecom.cn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email