Each of the terms used are different.  While they all are defined in the first document they are used, let me paraphrase the meanings of the definitions...

Event - something that happened

Event record - the recorded details of a single event

Update record - one or more datastore node updates

<notification> - a structure defined in RFC5277 which is as a wrapper which contains an event record.  A <notification> can exist without any active subscription.

"notification" statement - a structure defined in RFC-7950 section 7.16 which allows the definition of event record types specific to a YANG module. The results of the a YANG "notification" statement are encoded in a <notification>.  

Notification message - a message intended for a specific subscription receiver which includes one or more <notification>. A notification message will have undergone any security/content filtering on embedded <notification> as appropriate for that receiver.


Per the discussion below, I see an update record being a specialized type of event record.  For YANG push, the 'event' is driven by the update trigger: i.e., either the expiration of a periodic timer (for periodic subscriptions), or a change to the datastore (on-change subscription).

More below....

> From: Martin Bjorklund, June 13, 2018 3:04 AM
> 
> Alexander Clemm <alexander.clemm@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Two quick replies inline, <ALEX>
> > --- Alex
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Netconf [mailto:netconf-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Kent
> > > Watsen
> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 3:45 PM
> > > To: Eric Voit (evoit) <evoit@cisco.com>; Martin Bjorklund
> > > <mbj@tail-f.com>; alex@clemm.org
> > > Cc: netconf@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Netconf] comments on
> > > draft-ietf-netconf-subscribed-notifications-
> > > 12
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Sure, but can YP import the "Event Record" term from SN?
> > > >>
> > > >> Sure.  It imports other terms.  Alex, do you want to bring it in?
> > > >>
> >
> > <ALEX> Why should we bring it into YP?  We basically don't use the
> > term there.  We use "update record" (which we do define).  </ALEX>
> 
> Alex, see the previous emails in this thread for context.  The initial problem
> was the counter "pushed-notifications" in subscribed-notifications.  Eric
> suggested to rename it and describe it
> as:
> 
>          leaf count-sent {
>            type yang:counter64;
>            config false;
>            description
>              "The number of event records sent to the receiver.  The
>              count is initialized when a dynamic subscription is
>              established, or when a configured subscription
>              transitions to the valid state.";
> 
> The question is what this leaf really counts.  Does it count the number of
> <notification> messages sent?  The number of "event records"?  Does it include
> "update records"?

It should count the number of event records.  

The reason is driven by Martin's point below: draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages.  With this draft, a notification message may contain more than one event record.  Also with this draft, a notification message may contain a single event record could have been sent to serve the needs of multiple subscriptions.  For these reasons, post RFC-5277, having a count the notification messages won't provide any per-receiver insight into what was missed/delivered for a particular subscription.
 
> (Does this change if we have a mechanism to bundle several event records into
> a single <notification> message, as has been proposed?)
> 
> 
> 
> > > >> Also, I think that the definition could be improved.  It currently reads:
> > > >>
> > > >>    Event record: A set of information detailing an event.
> > > >
> > > > Yes.  But the word 'event' here is itself defined as:
> > > >
> > > >   Event: An occurrence of something that may be of interest.  Examples
> > > >   include a configuration change, a fault, a change in status, crossing
> > > >   a threshold, or an external input to the system.
> > > >
> > > >Reviewers have liked separation of the event itself from the record about
> it.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm okay with separation.  On one hand, it seems like common
> > > English, but it might be good to have it well-defined in this draft.
> > > Still it seems that the definition could be improved, maybe by contrasting it
> to an event?
> > > One is the what happened, the other a record about what happened...
> > >
> >
> 
> > <ALEX> The separation makes sense and I think is something we always
> > had in mind.  I am not clear what is needed.  We currently have "event
> > record", which is distinguished from the "event" itself, and the
> > "notification message", in addition to "event stream".  (We could
> > rename "notification message" to "event notification message", which
> > woudl become rather lengthy; we did not call it "event message" since
> > there might be notification messages that notify of
> > updates, which are different from events.)
> > In short, I am not convinced that any changes are needed; I do think
> > we have captured the right terms; but of course if you would like to
> > see alternative definition text please make a suggestion.
> 
> As Juergen noted you have "event record" and "notification message"
> defined as new terms in subscribed-notifications.  It is not clear how this
> relates to YANG's "notification" statement and RFC 6241/5277 <notification>
> message.

Hopefully the text at the beginning highlights the needed differentiation.   I can also place the above definitions of <notification> and "notification" statement into the subscribed-notifications terminology definitions if this clears things up.

> I *think* that YANG's "notification" statement defines an "event record", 

Yes

> and that your term "notification message" is the same as
> 6241/5277 "notification" (message).

Yes.   

The reason to differentiate the terms now is that when draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages completes, the term "notification message" will be able to refer to both the RFC-5277 and the draft-ietf-netconf-notification-messages mechanisms for encapsulating event records.

> Also, I think that an "update record" is represented as one of "push-update"
> and "push-change-update" YANG notifications.  So aren't these "event
> records"?  I.e., an "update record" is a special case of an "event record"?

Yes.

Eric

> 
> /martin