Hi the authors, >“Another one to allow the definition of custom events/notifications, or smart >filters for push updates. (We should bring back the earlier draft.)” As we worked on the smart filter before. We want to use the ECA model. It seems this model enabled the generic programmability. Can we just use it to program any filter or what potentially need to augment/customize for a specific model? Thanks, Tianran
From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexander Clemm Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 4:01 AM To: Joel Jaeggli <joe...@bogus.com>; netmod@ietf.org Subject: Re: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang Hi, I support this draft and would like to see netmod work on this, but I do think some aspects need more maturing and parts of this probably should be rescoped. Should the draft be adopted now, or should it be improved first and adopted later? Not sure. I would like to see the work continue, so in that sense I would clearly like to see the work adopted; at the same time there are a number of issues that IMHO really need to be addressed. I share some of the concerns raised by Juergen and Andy. Specifically, I think the precise problem needs to be defined more clearly. In the discussion it was mentioned RMON – would it be that, or perhaps a better analogy Event MIB? Section 3 mentions that this is to specify trigger conditions for when to send push updates. That is perhaps consistent with an Event MIB, but a slightly different problem from ECAs. Section 4.2 then proceeds to allow for the definition of “events” – but really only defining a “timer event”, with the ECA model omitting tie-in e.g. with notifications. Including a threshold mechanism here is a bit distracting and should perhaps be taken out – while the crossing of a threshold might constitute an event, I don’t think this should be tied inside an ECA but be something that stands on its own. (The prior draft on Smart Filters for Push Updates addressed this – it has layed dormant for a while and in this sense I can’t object for this work to be picked someplace else, but logically really it does not belong here but should be separate.) The actions, finally, describe not simply management operations. I understand the intent is to have an escape mechanism allowing to “call out” other functions / scripts deployed at a device, but this intent needs to be called out more clearly. So, in summary, I think the WG should consider rescoping this draft a bit – maybe divided into separate drafts, each addressing a separate concern, which will provide focus and make the problem being solved clearer: One to define an ECA framework. In this, clarify the invocation of actions, and allow for tie-in of notifications. This would be this draft. Another one to allow the definition of custom events/notifications, or smart filters for push updates. (We should bring back the earlier draft.) A third one to perhaps allow for the definition of “custom RPCs” that allow to invoke custom scripts/functions via Netconf/Restconf operations, then tie that , which are then invoked using the regular RPC. (This would be a new draft) --- Alex From: netmod <netmod-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of Joel Jaeggli Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:44 AM To: netmod@ietf.org<mailto:netmod@ietf.org> Subject: [netmod] Adoption poll for draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang This email begins a 2 week working group adoption poll for: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-06<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.ietf.org%2Fhtml%2Fdraft-wwx-netmod-event-yang-06&data=02%7C01%7Calex%40futurewei.com%7Cfc49312f082d40d7c07908d7b491d2f6%7C0fee8ff2a3b240189c753a1d5591fedc%7C1%7C0%7C637176410724720916&sdata=RowKvLkl%2BUoR9H18Ns3AX%2F%2Fe%2Fzu5t%2FqYmBVENEdiPcU%3D&reserved=0> Please voice your support or objections before the poll completes on March 3rd. Thanks joel
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
