[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: NETCONF checkpoint]

To: Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com
Subject: Re: [Fwd: NETCONF checkpoint]
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:34:38 -0800
Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF902444109@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
References: <E320A8529CF07E4C967ECC2F380B0CF902444109@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031121

Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com wrote:

Hi Eliot,

The working group is attempting to determine whether notifications should remain as part of the base specification. Here are the choices facing the group:

Option A. Leave them in as currently specified, and require all protocol mappings to support them. Option B. Allow them to be asynchronous, but don't use RFC 3195, and require all mappings to support them. Option C. Remove them entirely from the specification and let vendors implement RFC 3195 or other notification mechanisms as they see fit (for instance, existing syslog).

Is there some reason why we only have these three choices?

They are currently specified as capabilities. Thus option A is presumably what you want. Otherwise, in order to implement them either in SSH or HTTP we had discussed option B.

Eliot

--
to unsubscribe send a message to netconf-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/netconf/>

References:
- RE: [Fwd: NETCONF checkpoint]
  - From: <Margaret.Wasserman@nokia.com>

Prev by Date: RE: [Fwd: NETCONF checkpoint]
Next by Date: Re: Issue 5.1) SSH End of message directive
Previous by thread: RE: [Fwd: NETCONF checkpoint]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread