Re: [yang-doctors] [Netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-10

Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com> Fri, 06 April 2018 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <mbj@tail-f.com>
X-Original-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: yang-doctors@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D5FE1201FA; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:30:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.911
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.911 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 3Pc4evx4y2Ur; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.tail-f.com (mail.tail-f.com [46.21.102.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98DD7120726; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 07:30:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (h-80-27.A165.priv.bahnhof.se [212.85.80.27]) by mail.tail-f.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D3B21AE034E; Fri, 6 Apr 2018 16:30:48 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 16:30:48 +0200 (CEST)
Message-Id: <20180406.163048.26297343506061195.mbj@tail-f.com>
To: evoit@cisco.com
Cc: andy@yumaworks.com, yang-doctors@ietf.org, draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications.all@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, netconf@ietf.org
From: Martin Bjorklund <mbj@tail-f.com>
In-Reply-To: <eb62ab2757f0425d8fd634241a838367@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
References: <e989a39a44ea4938b2eb9a5686cf8dbc@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com> <20180326.094758.1920158070824114086.mbj@tail-f.com> <eb62ab2757f0425d8fd634241a838367@XCH-RTP-013.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 24.5 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/yang-doctors/li9bohdyD3v69SqqTgJUN3LrK78>
Subject: Re: [yang-doctors] [Netconf] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-10
X-BeenThere: yang-doctors@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Email list of the yang-doctors directorate <yang-doctors.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/yang-doctors/>
List-Post: <mailto:yang-doctors@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yang-doctors>, <mailto:yang-doctors-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2018 14:30:54 -0000

Hi,

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> After reflecting on this for a bit, I am ok with your argument that if
> the system is quickly generating notification-messages, then the
> replay buffer might be continuously emptying.  And therefore a hint
> for replay start time might not be accurate for very long.  As a
> result, it is better to start the replay immediately with the oldest
> buffered event.
> 
> I have updated the establish-subscription RPC as follows.  Does this
> cover your concern (per this sub-thread)?
> 
>   rpc establish-subscription {
>     input {     }
>     output {
>       leaf identifier {      }
>       leaf replay-start-time {
>         if-feature "replay";
>         type yang:date-and-time;
>           description
>             "If a replay has been requested, this represents the 
>             earliest time covered by the event buffer for the requested 
>             stream.  The value of this object is the 
>             'replay-log-aged-time' if it exists.  Otherwise it is the 
>             'replay-log-creation-time'.  All buffered event records 
>             after this time will be replayed to a receiver.  Note that 
>             this object will only be sent if the 'replay-start-time' is 
>             later than the time requested by the subscriber.";

I am ok with this.   But the output leaf should probably not have the
same name as the input leaf; it is not clear which one you refer to in
the last sentence in the description.  Also, I suggest you do:

  s/Note that this/This/

in the last sentence.


Reading the definition of 'replay-log-aged-time' again, it says:

   The timestamp of the last event record aged out of the log.

The document doesn't define what "the timestamp" of an event record
is.  Is this the time that is sent in the "eventTime" field in the
<notification>?   I think this needs to be clarified.


/martin



>       }
>     }
>   }
> 
> If you are ok, I will spread the change through the rest of the
> document.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, March 23, 2018 7:37 AM
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Eric Voit (evoit)" <evoit@cisco.com> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Martin,
> > > > >
> > > > > > From: Martin Bjorklund, March 16, 2018 4:19 AM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy Bierman <andy@yumaworks.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2.4.2.1.  Replay Subscription
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    If the "replay-start-
> > > > > > >    time" contains a value that is earlier than content stored
> > > > > > >    within
> > > > > > >    the
> > > > > > >    publisher's replay buffer, then the subscription MUST be
> > rejected,
> > > > > > >    and the leaf "replay-start-time-hint" MUST be set in the reply.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >    >> this is a significant and bad change from RFC 5277 behavior
> > > > > > >    >> the start-time says "send all events that you have stored
> > > > > > >       since this time" The server sends its oldest event and does
> > > > > > >       not reject the request.  This draft incorrectly interprets
> > > > > > >       the request as "the server MUST have an event stored at least
> > > > > > >       this old"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree, and I have pointed this out in earlier reviews.
> > > > >
> > > > > In our past discussions, it looked like you were ok after reading
> > > > > Yves requirement here:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.ietf.org/mail-
> > archive/web/netconf/current/msg12154.htm
> > > > > l
> > > > >
> > > > > Beyond this functional requirement, the design pattern used is
> > > > > that an establish-subscription RPC must send the exact parameters
> > > > > accepted by the publisher.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > If a client sends a too early time, and the server doesn't send
> > > > > > the optional hint, the client will have to guess the time.  Not
> > > > > > very robust.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the motivation is that the client should be informed that he
> > > > > > might have missed some notifs b/c the replay-start-time is too
> > > > > > early, this information can be passed in the rpc-reply from
> > > > > > establish-subscription instead.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes this could be done.  But this doesn't follow the design
> > > > > pattern of making the client explicitly ask for what they want.
> > > > > Consistent design patterns do matter.
> > > >
> > > > Well, "what they want" depends on the semantics of this leaf!  If we
> > > > keep the old semantics, then if the client passes this parameter
> > > > with some start time, it "explicitly asked for what it wanted".
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, if the objective is to ensure that no notifs are sent unless
> > > > the replay-start-time exactly matches the event-time of a
> > > > notification in the buffer, then we can add a parameter to ensure
> > > > that.
> > >
> > > The current definition of replay-start-time is:
> > >
> > > "Used to trigger the replay feature and indicate that the replay
> > > should start at the time specified..."
> > >
> > > To me, that means the replay-start-time has to be covered by the scope
> > > of the replay buffer.  It does not mean that it is required that the
> > > requested replay-start-time needs to exactly match the time of a
> > > buffered event.
> > 
> > The text is quite unclear:
> > 
> >   Used to trigger the replay feature and indicate that the
> >   replay should start at the time specified.
> > 
> > and:
> > 
> >   If the "replay-start- time" contains a value that is earlier than
> >   content stored within the publisher's replay buffer, then the
> >   subscription MUST be rejected
> > 
> > In lack of a clear definition, I assume that "content stored [in]
> > replay buffer"
> > refers to event records, since I assume that nothing else can be
> > stored in
> > the replay buffer?
> > 
> > Next question is what it means that a time value is earlier than
> > "content"?
> > Again, my assumption is that it means "earlier than the 'eventTime' of
> > the
> > event records".  Is this not what is intended?
> > 
> > From what you write here though, I think that what you propose is
> > that:
> > 
> >   If "replay-start-time" is less than the latest of
> >   "replay-log-aged-time" and "replay-log-creation-time", then the
> >   request is rejected.
> > 
> > This must be clarified.  Also, ensure that the required behavior is
> > clearly
> > defined in the YANG module, and not just in the text in the document.
> > 
> > But I still think that there should be some way for the client to get
> > all
> > buffered event records, just like what was supported in RFC 5277,
> > without
> > extra round trips.  Note that if the system is quickly generating
> > notifs, the
> > client might need many round trips before it manages to replay
> > anything.
> > 
> > 
> > > > In all cases, if the client receives a notif with a time later than
> > > > what it asked for, it knows that it might have lost some notifs.
> > >
> > > Why would this mean it might have lost some notifs?  In the current
> > > embodiment, the replay will not start unless the subscriber asked for
> > > a time that is within the scope covered by the buffer.  I.e., a time
> > > later than both "replay-log-creation-time" and "replay-log-aged-time".
> > 
> > See above.  But the reason for rejection is that the client might have
> > lost
> > some notifs.
> > 
> > > >   leaf replay-exact-start-time {
> > > >     if-feature "replay";
> > > >     when "../replay-start-time";
> > > >     type empty;
> > > >     description
> > > >       "If this parameter is present, and the server does not have any
> > > >        stored event record with 'eventTime' equal to the requested
> > > >        'replay-start-time', then the server MUST reject the request.";
> > > >   }
> > 
> > If we add something like this, the leaf name and description text
> > needs to
> > be tweaked for the clarified semantics of replay-start-time.
> > 
> > > Something like this parameter *might* be applicable if we choose to
> > > respond to a dynamic replay request with events later than those
> > > requested.  (i.e., in the establish-subscription success response.) As
> > > noted in other threads, this is a legitimate way to approach the
> > > issue.  However if the WG chooses this way, this will result in an
> > > exception to the design pattern of requiring the subscriber to ask for
> > > what they are going to receive.
> > 
> > I disagree.  The client explicitly asks the server to send all
> > buffered event
> > records.
> > 
> > > In addition, we might end up sending a stream of information to the
> > > subscriber which is not sufficient, and therefore not verifiably
> > > relevant.
> > 
> > It is up to the client to define what is relevant.  Maybe I just want
> > to view
> > the replay buffer for trouble shooting purposes.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > /martin
>