Subject: Re: [Netconf] question about "event drafts"

From: "Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:19:03 +0000

Hi Martin,

There has been subteam working the four subscription drafts.  With our weekly meetings, there have been good enhancements in since Berlin.   And you are correct in your note at the bottom hinting that some individual drafts were released in the middle of shuffling some things around.  

I believe we have cleaned up the overlaps with the four WG drafts:
  draft-ietf-netconf-rfc5277bis-00
  draft-ietf-netconf-netconf-event-notifications-00
  draft-ietf-netconf-restconf-notif-00
  draft-ietf-netconf-yang-push-03

It is possible that a few overlaps might still exist in yang-push-03, but these will be gone in with v04 in the coming week or so.  

Other thoughts inline...

-----Original Message-----
>From Martin Bjorklund, August 31, 2016 11:40 AM

Hi,

I just watched the recorded NETCONF session from IETF 96, and read the minutes.  In the minutes I read that four new drafts related to event notifications are supposed to be adopted, after validation on the ML.  I haven't seen any email about this adoption, and I don't understand which four drafts you referred to.  I can guess that three of them are:

  draft-gonzalez-netconf-event-notifications-00
  draft-gonzalez-netconf-5277bis-02
  draft-voit-netconf-restconf-notif-00

I don't think that these documents are ready for adoption.  It is not clear to me how they are supposed to work.  First of all, we have the 5277bis document, which apparently doesn't obsolete 5277.  However, the event-notifications draft says that it obsoletes 5277.  Also, there is still quite some overlap between the documents.

For example, 5277bis says:

   This document defines mechanisms that provide an asynchronous message
   notification delivery service for the NETCONF protocol .  This is an
   optional capability built on top of the base NETCONF definition.

And draft-gonzalez-netconf-event-notifications says:

   This document defines the support of [event-notifications] by the
   Network Configuration protocol (NETCONF).

So it seems both drafts define how notifications are sent over NETCONF.

<Eric> Hopefully the new versions are eliminating these replications.

Further, the intent of draft-voit-netconf-restconf-notif-00 is not clear.  RESTCONF already supports notifications, and this new draft
has:

  3.1.1.  Dynamic YANG Subscription over RESTCONF

     Dynamic Subscriptions are configured and manage Subscriptions via
     signaling.  This signaling is transported over [restconf].  Once
     established, streaming Event Notifications are then delivered via
     Restconf SSE.

I don't understand what this means.

<Eric>  Restconf spec has an issue where it cannot handle multiplexed subscriptions.  (i.e., it effectively has the same limitation as 5277).  So we need a new mechanism.

New draft significantly enhances the text above.  For a summary of what is coming, check out last week's meeting minutes at:
https://github.com/netconf-wg/yang-push/wiki/Minutes-2016-09-14 
Or wait until we post next week.  The text is all written, it just needs to be reviewed.  Unicast me if you want a preview.

I think that this confusion is basically just the result of some reshuffling of contents, and that's fine.  But I think that the intent of each individual draft must be more clear, and that the text in the drafts actually reflects this.

<Eric>  Agree.  Hopefully we are progressing here.

Eric

/martin

_______________________________________________
Netconf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf

---

From: Martin Bjorklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 12:18:49 +0200 (CEST)

"Eric Voit (evoit)" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> There has been subteam working the four subscription drafts.  With our
> weekly meetings, there have been good enhancements in since Berlin.
> And you are correct in your note at the bottom hinting that some
> individual drafts were released in the middle of shuffling some things
> around.
> 
> It is possible that a few overlaps might still exist in yang-push-03,
> but these will be gone in with v04 in the coming week or so.

Ok!  I will review this again once there is a set of documents that
are consistent with each other.

One issue that maybe will be clarified is why we need a new operation
"establish-subscription" instead of extending "create-subscription"
with additional parameters?

/martin

> I just watched the recorded NETCONF session from IETF 96, and read the
> minutes.  In the minutes I read that four new drafts related to event
> notifications are supposed to be adopted, after validation on the ML.
> I haven't seen any email about this adoption, and I don't understand
> which four drafts you referred to.  I can guess that three of them
> are:
> 
> I don't think that these documents are ready for adoption.  It is not
> clear to me how they are supposed to work.  First of all, we have the
> 5277bis document, which apparently doesn't obsolete 5277.  However,
> the event-notifications draft says that it obsoletes 5277.  Also,
> there is still quite some overlap between the documents.
> 
> Further, the intent of draft-voit-netconf-restconf-notif-00 is not
> clear.  RESTCONF already supports notifications, and this new draft
> has:
> 
> <Eric> Restconf spec has an issue where it cannot handle multiplexed
> subscriptions.  (i.e., it effectively has the same limitation as
> 5277).  So we need a new mechanism.
> 
> New draft significantly enhances the text above.  For a summary of
> what is coming, check out last week's meeting minutes at:
> Or wait until we post next week.  The text is all written, it just
> needs to be reviewed.  Unicast me if you want a preview.
> 
> 
> I think that this confusion is basically just the result of some
> reshuffling of contents, and that's fine.  But I think that the intent
> of each individual draft must be more clear, and that the text in the
> drafts actually reflects this.
>