Re: [secdir] Asynchronous Nature of the I2RS Protocol - vs RESTCONF and NETCONF

Melinda Shore <> Mon, 02 March 2015 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6555E1A8A76; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:44:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0YbYBcX4EJpa; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D8821A8A61; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 14:44:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pdno5 with SMTP id o5so43068277pdn.8; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:44:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=IB0nVNvfGl+o9nBf5+wSRzgSqMx5jN1rVCUdtKgX0Vg=; b=gUPtRdlG2gd0YuQYfKGOuITswrJxRXoxKqt2snaH1dNh43a3NrXsagiZ7W2SS9Jh4r 73Y9A7qiCKqVfuQFlMxFnpiT0A4xMI9QnzasXU1j631cxd4HqqVKhTtkP+UIG/57q0k6 IerM3dLNnJX+8GHM1MjOgg2KJTdAJ+95lx0FH2DBHlx9AiGL/YhUzyiOyZaRVBI/bg2d snH26rHrCS5xOcrXMtT2fBAmFov4kOATJCj3GblLqeWDZCdMalmp1taCTPD5FNlUhA2k oKB0/+6/T0SN8HxA2+EjLi/aU/axldAP5LPwgiDPUv1tkzUfEfq/I8t/UBXyo26JSZCX M3Og==
X-Received: by with SMTP id ir1mr50300778pbc.151.1425336281527; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:44:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from spandex.local ( []) by with ESMTPSA id hl2sm3163784pdb.43.2015. (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Mar 2015 14:44:40 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 13:44:39 -0900
From: Melinda Shore <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Susan Hares <>,,
References: <01c301d05538$0b4846c0$21d8d440$>
In-Reply-To: <01c301d05538$0b4846c0$21d8d440$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [secdir] Asynchronous Nature of the I2RS Protocol - vs RESTCONF and NETCONF
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Security Area Directorate <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 22:44:43 -0000

On 3/2/15 1:27 PM, Susan Hares wrote:
> This posts asks if we need to require a
> checkpoint to make asynchronous functions work.

Hi, Sue:  I don't really understand the question.  If you're
going to specify that there's going to be support for
asynchronous event processing, you need a model for that.  It
can be polling-based, callback-based, interrupt-based, and so
on, and what data structures you'll require will depend on the
model you choose.  That includes both for naming and for
coordination/scheduling.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean
by "checkpoint" (semaphores?  locks?) but it may actually be
out of scope - an implementation question.

At any rate the first place to start is with coming up with a
concurrency (or asynchrony) model, and then proceeding from