-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
Minutes 2016 05 26
-
For slides referenced below, see PPT above
-
Looking for a date which is better (E.g., Ebben & Eric have conflicts now)
-
Perhaps Wednesday, same timeslot? Please reply back if you absolutely cannot do Wednesday. (Some people have intermittent conflicts, for example for I2RS interim.)
-
Objective is for next meeting to start reviewing text for the four draft proposals
-
Authors to put text in the Git before next meeting
-
Matched to this text will be list of open issues
-
Hope is to submit this to WG for adoption of all drafts quickly. This request came from WG during interim.
-
Slide 5: Proposal made for Configured Subscriptions and Dynamic
-
No objections to general proposal. Specifics need to be added for diagnostics & troubleshooting
-
Slide 5: What is a Stream
-
Framing streams and identifying which objects go to which stream has a general proposal which seems workable
-
Still need to figure out how to auto-assign things like counters to the right stream types
-
Assignment of objects to streams will be needed for slowly ramping up an increase in subscribable objects on a platform anyway.
- Not sure we should standardize how to populate streams with this effort. We should just ensure we know how it could be done in an implementation.
-
Slide 6: Difference between Eventing and Periodic with Suppress Redundant behavior
-
Current proposed behavior is that the last change on an object gets pushed at the end of the dampening period
-
There are possible improvements to slide 6 worth discussing.
-
Do we want to wait for a dampening period if a new object changes which hasn't changed previously?
-
Do we want a counter to show the degree of churn during a dampening period.
- Question: are counters available for counting the changes in leaves with existing models? Answer: No, this is one reason Periodic solutions don't match to use cases where burst dampening is in effect for Routes and Interface state.
-
Periodic solutions only reporting current state can impact applications like traffic engineering as traffic steering cannot take into account flaps underway which are not exposed via current-only state push.
-
Slide 7: Another example of eventing this time with Add/Delete.
-
Proposed behavior is same where you only send the latest change to an object.
-
As this could result in a message showing the deletion of an object with didn't already exist, or the creation of an object which exists, there is a conflict with YANG behavior which doesn't expect dampening. (e.g., RFC 6020: Section 7.6.7. NETCONF Operations)
- Either we need to make an exception for YANG push dampened streams, or we need another mechanism.
-
I2RS driven YANG Datastore Push Rqts doc through IESG
-
Negotiate vs. auto-adjust - We didn't get to slides 8,9,10
-
These slides provide examples of a service class which is not viable with auto-adjust. The periodic interval and anchor time for synchronization must be established from a central controller.
-
We can talk about this more in the next call as we ran out of time.
-
Current issues being worked
-
Supporting multiple Receivers for a Configured Subscription
-
Proper behavior for on-change, detecting and indicating changes within a Dampening period
-
Negotiate vs. auto-adjust
-
What are the domains of different Stream types.
-
QoS parameters for subscriptions. Relevance for buffering and loss of connectivity (i.e., this isn’t just about HTTP2)
-
Layering security requirements/considerations into the YANG model for Configured Subscription.
-
Mechanisms/RPCs for defined for Diagnostics OpState requirements and implications
-
Deltas for OpenConfig-Telemetry.yang
-
Replay support for different stream types (modify vs. delete)
-
Event Dampening (overwhelming receivers) & rejecting certain subscription types
-
How to structure for non-standardizable encodings