Subject: Re: [netconf] some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription

From: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 17:04:59 +0000

-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Michael Richardson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
发送时间: 2021年6月26日 0:51
收件人: Qin Wu <[email-masked]>; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
主题: Re: some comments on netconf-adaptive-subscription

Michael Richardson <[email-masked]> wrote:
    >> [Qin]: I am also hoping RESTCONF and CORECONF can work together, but
    >> they seems to look into different use cases (constrained device
    >> management vs unconstrained device management) .  I am not sure we
    >> should generalized RESTCONF and CORECONF into a single protocol.

    > That's not what I'm suggesting.  I'm asking, if bandwidth is an issue,
    > why not use a smaller encoding.  And, why not integrate with CoAP
    > Observe?

draft-birkholz-yang-core-telemetry-01 [now expired] for instance tries to do a lot of the matching.  I think that the adaptive rate subscription that you've created would work very well within that model.
[Qin]: Well, I will investigate this and see what is missing there.
I guess yang-core-telemetry-01 needs to update itself as ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications is published as RFC 8639 right.
[Qin]: Agree. 
I still don't know how XPath would work with COMI, but really I'm just sitting around the edges of the YANG over the wire space.
[Qin]: Good question, note that XPATH used for NETCONF follows XPath 1.0 [W3C.REC-xpath-19991116] and XPath 2.0
See RFC6241 section 8.9 and RFC7950 section 6.4.
--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

---

From: Henk Birkholz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2021 23:49:48 +0200

Hi Michael,
hi Qin,
hi all,

I am painfully aware that I did not find the cycles to progress Concise 
YANG Telemetry in the recent past. This seems to be a good opportunity 
to change that :-)

Wrt the topic of XPATH, there is 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/jsonpath/about/ now and specifically 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-jsonpath-base/

It probably makes sense to create an I-D here that tracks the gaps that 
need to be bridged to do a CBORPATH for CORECONF. I'll take that item in 
concert with rekindling the other one.

Viele Grüße,

Henk

On 25.06.21 19:04, Qin Wu wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> netconf mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netconf
>