Re: [netmod] notifications2, new draft (was RE: notifications...and yang-next)
Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> Wed, 15 March 2017 17:19 UTC
Return-Path: <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
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 E19FD131728 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.221
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.221 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, 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 9209xKySFR31 for <netmod@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:19:28 -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 47D7913172A for <netmod@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DCV94525; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:19:23 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com (10.208.112.38) by lhreml705-cah.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.46) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:18:31 +0000
Received: from SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.69]) by SJCEML702-CHM.china.huawei.com ([169.254.4.133]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Wed, 15 Mar 2017 10:18:17 -0700
From: Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>
To: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com>, Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>, Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>, "Andy Bierman (andy@yumaworks.com)" <andy@yumaworks.com>
CC: "netmod@ietf.org" <netmod@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [netmod] notifications2, new draft (was RE: notifications...and yang-next)
Thread-Index: AQHSnZ8JbTYyKKpFn0asnBZEMJy02aGWJHgg
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 17:18:15 +0000
Message-ID: <644DA50AFA8C314EA9BDDAC83BD38A2E0DF87126@SJCEML703-CHM.china.huawei.com>
References: <83212dff34af49c59e917bfffe8c0604@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <5899d3c50174435cb9631d4193967246@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <5899d3c50174435cb9631d4193967246@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.213.48.151]
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=0001.0A090202.58C9779C.00BC, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0, ip=169.254.5.69, so=2013-06-18 04:22:30, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 04006203165a8511f8f4e0715b8fa9b8
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/netmod/rRsLxCkpt26k3jR-l6VfaPnabQg>
Subject: Re: [netmod] notifications2, new draft (was RE: notifications...and yang-next)
X-BeenThere: netmod@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
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, 15 Mar 2017 17:19:32 -0000
Hi Eric, I think it might fit better into NETCONF, actually. But as you point out, it could land in either and whichever way the chairs decide is fine with me. --- Alex -----Original Message----- From: Eric Voit (evoit) [mailto:evoit@cisco.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 8:15 AM To: Ladislav Lhotka <lhotka@nic.cz>; Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@jacobs-university.de>; Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com>; Andy Bierman (andy@yumaworks.com) <andy@yumaworks.com> Cc: netmod@ietf.org Subject: RE: [netmod] notifications2, new draft (was RE: notifications...and yang-next) Hi Lada, Juergen, Alex, Andy, In January your comments on "notifications" helped frame the context of draft-voit-netmod-yang-notifications2. See thread https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg17434.html The is an open question between WG chairs on whether this question is more appropriate for NETMOD or NETCONF. I am ok if it lands in either, but I was wondering if you have opinions on its placement (or where it might be discussed in Chicago) as you commented previously. Eric > From: Eric Voit, February 24, 2017 12:23 PM > > Alex, Tim, Andy, & I have posted at new draft at: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-voit-netmod-yang-notifications2-00 > > Explored here are notification capabilities beyond RFC-7950 section 7.16: > > * what are the set of transport agnostic header objects which might be > useful within a YANG notification > > * how might a set of YANG notifications be bundled for bulk transport. > > * how do you query the originator of a notification to troubleshoot > elements of this process. > > Any feedback would be appreciated. > > Thanks, > Eric > > > From: netmod, January 25, 2017 8:53 PM > > Subject: Re: [netmod] notifications...and yang-next > > > > > > The NETCONF and NETMOD chairs are actively discussing how we might > > move content around between drafts maintained by the two groups. > > Resolving this notification statement issue is part of that. Here > > are some of my thoughts about this: > > > > 1) I think that YANG is primarily used to define the notification's > > data tree, the payload, which may be wrapped by a protocol-specific > > envelop that includes, for instance, a timestamp. This being the > > case, I'm hoping that there isn't much to do here. > > > > 2) Yes, RFC 7950 references RFC 5277, but note that it does so only > > in a section called "NETCONF XML Encoding Rules". It is my hope > > that we will move all such sections out in the next revision RFC > > 7950 (see > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang-next/issues/11) > > > > 3) Above and beyond the notification statement issue, Lada also > > notes that RFC > > 7950 Section 3 references RFC 6241 for some terms. I believe that, > > in order to remove these normative references to 6241, these terms > > should be moved to the revised-datastore draft (see > > https://github.com/netmod-wg/yang- > > next/issues/12). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > Kent // mostly as a contributor > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > netmod mailing list > > netmod@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > netmod@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
- [netmod] notifications2, new draft (was RE: notif… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netmod] notifications2, new draft (was RE: n… Eric Voit (evoit)
- Re: [netmod] notifications2, new draft (was RE: n… Alexander Clemm