So, saving the invocation of one command to establish the “meta-subscription”, that’s all this is for? And for this we are asking implementors to create what is in effect redundant instrumentation? This seems a lot of effort for a small saving.
As a thought, even in that case, would you even need a redundant YANG-data model, or would it make sense to instead augment the existing model with an additional parameter instead “provide manifest info”, which adds implicitly a subscription to the subscription info to the subscription itself? Such an alternative could be accomplished by augmenting such a parameter into the existing model, and save the need to create YANG data instrumentation that is basically redundant, hence reduce the complexity of implementations. --- Alex From: Tianran Zhou <zhoutian...@huawei.com> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 10:49 PM To: Alexander Clemm <a...@futurewei.com>; opsawg@ietf.org Subject: RE: Manifest need? Re: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest Hi Alex, I think this is a very good discussion. I raised this question before in the mailing list. I think there may be some benefits: 1. The meta data can always go with the telemetry data, without explicit subscription. This facilitates the close loop automation. 2. Another subscription to the subscription information may make the management complex, since we put all the subscriptions in one list. Best, Tianran 发件人: OPSAWG [mailto:opsawg-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Alexander Clemm 发送时间: 2022年11月18日 7:40 收件人: opsawg@ietf.org<mailto:opsawg@ietf.org> 主题: [OPSAWG] Manifest need? Re: draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest Hello draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest coauthors, I just wanted to follow up on my comment at the microphone in London regarding draft-claise-opsawg-collected-data-manifest. Clearly, there is a need to preserve context to be able to correctly interpret data after it has been collected. That being said, as currently stated, the draft appears to overspecify some of those things, defining some YANG data that IMHO is not actually needed as the same can already be accomplished. This concerns the specifics about the subscription itself. RFC 8641 includes a YANG model that reflects for each subscription how it is configured (whether configured directly or established by RPC), including the selection filter, the update trigger, the period and anchor time (in case of periodic subscription), dampening periods and excluded changes (in case of on-change subscription), etc. The corresponding YANG data can be itself be subscribed to, or retrieved on demand, just like any other kind of YANG data. I am therefore not quite sure what the proposed manifest would provide that couldn't be accomplished already. The suggestion to retain the subscription data along with the subscribed data makes a lot of sense but would appear to be a practice that will be up to the management application to implement, with the mechanism already provided. (This could of course be included as a description of a recommended practice in the draft.) Or is there something else that is missing? If there is indeed a delta that cannot be otherwise accomplished, my suggestion would be to add text to the draft that clearly describes the possibility of subscribing to subscription configuration data, then explaining the functional delta that your draft covers in addition to that. Thanks --- Alex
_______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list OPSAWG@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
