IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [netmod] notifications

Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de> Wed, 18 January 2017 19:13 UTC

Return-Path: <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
X-Original-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: netmod@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4CF7E12945C for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:13:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.399
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.399 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 iNtgeMqaHxVA for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:13:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de (atlas3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.18]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD3121293D9 for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 11:13:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (demetrius5.irc-it.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6A66D3; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:23 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from atlas3.jacobs-university.de ([10.70.0.205]) by localhost (demetrius5.jacobs-university.de [10.70.0.222]) (amavisd-new, port 10030) with ESMTP id V-7PB9NoRcz9; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:21 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de (hermes.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "hermes.jacobs-university.de", Issuer "Jacobs University CA - G01" (verified OK)) by atlas3.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.48]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2292B200A3; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:23 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at jacobs-university.de
Received: from hermes.jacobs-university.de ([212.201.44.23]) by localhost (demetrius3.jacobs-university.de [212.201.44.32]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8hA1lKdheqG3; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from elstar.local (elstar.jacobs.jacobs-university.de [10.50.231.133]) by hermes.jacobs-university.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B253B200A5; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: by elstar.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id AA9DB3E2994C; Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:26 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 20:13:26 +0100
From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>
Message-ID: <20170118191326.GB5811@elstar.local>
Mail-Followup-To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, netmod@ietf.org
References: <m2wpds4i5t.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <m2wpds4i5t.fsf@birdie.labs.nic.cz>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/nAG3GxXj1so-JM8hDNDY1g9y0p0>
Cc: netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [netmod] notifications
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>
List-Id: NETMOD WG list <netmod.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/netmod/>
List-Post: <mailto:netmod@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod>, <mailto:netmod-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:13:26 -0000

The only references to RFC 5277 in the YANG 1.1 specification I found
refers to the <notification> element. I do not see anything broken or
worth fixing.

/js

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 02:22:22PM +0100, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> if NETCONF WG moves away from RFC 5277, what does it mean for YANG? In my
> opinion, we have two options:
> 
> 1. remove references to 5277 from the YANG spec and define a notification
>    as any data sent asynchronously by the server, or
> 
> 2. generalize even more and treat a particular notification as just
>    another type of data tree.
> 
> BTW, the Terminology section in RFC 7950 doesn't contain a definition of
> a notification (unlike pretty much everything else). Is it just an
> omission or was it intentional?
> 
> Lada
> 
> -------------------- Start of forwarded message --------------------
> From: "Mehmet Ersue" <mersue@gmail.com>
> To: "'Netconf'" <netconf@ietf.org>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 00:06:14 +0100
> Subject: [Netconf] New Notification and Subscription Features WASFW: 3
>  Options for Subscription & Event Notification draft structure
> 
> ...
> 
> B) NETCONF co-chairs further propose that NETCONF WG should use its energy
> in the future to complete and improve the new notification and subscription
> RFCs and stop maintaining RFC 5277 for issues other than errata.  Note that
> it is required that RFC 5277 and all new work needs to gracefully co-exist
> in any deployment.  
> 
> -- 
> Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> 
> _______________________________________________
> netmod mailing list
> netmod@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email