Re: notification charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Tom Petch wrote:

> Andy
>
> Notifications or events, or asynchronous messages?
>
> As Sharon says
> "an asynchronous message, sometimes referred to as a
>   notification or event message"
>
> I get a slight sense of you and Sharon determinedly heading in different
> directions:-(
>  
Notifications.

I want to design features with a specific purpose.
NETCONF is not a transport for arbitrary asynch messages.  We will not have
super-loose definitions of protocol elements, so that (for example) NETCONF
notifications could be used to carry IPFIX reports or SW downloads or 
whatever.
I think there is something in the draft called a "one-way RPC" that I 
really disagree with.
Once you start down the slippery slope (e.g., declaring a notification 
can be a 4 billion
byte octet stream) then all implementations get more difficult, even 
though hardly anyone
wants this sort of "notification feature".

> Tom Petch
>  

Andy

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
> To: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 3:27 AM
> Subject: notification charter proposal
>
>
>  
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please comment on the following charter text before it goes to the
> > ADs for approval.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Andy and Simon
> >
> > ============================================================
> >
> > NETCONF WG Charter Clarification proposal:
> >
> > The original NETCONF WG charter contains the following line item,
> > describing the characteristics that the protocol should have:
> >
> >   - Provides support for asynchronous notifications
> >
> > This support was removed from the protocol for several reasons, including:
> >
> > - Removal of multiple channels (or connections) per session
> > - Inconsistent notification support capabilities for each application
> > mapping
> > - Lack of a configurable notification type selection (filtering) mechanism
> > - Lack of consensus on feature importance
> > - Lack of time to reach consensus on all these issues
> >
> > Some time has passed, and there is now WG consensus to finish this
> > work item, however the single line in the original charter needs to
> > be expanded and this work scoped in much more detail.
> >
> > The NETCONF Notification work shall consist of the following:
> >
> > - Specify the <hello> message (capability exchange) details to
> >    support notifications.
> > - Specify the application mapping details to support notifications.
> > - Specify the protocol syntax and semantics of a notification message.
> > - Specify a mechanism for controlling the delivery (turn on/off)
> >   of notifications during a session.
> > - Specify a mechanism for selectively receiving a configurable subset
> > of all
> >   possible notification types.
> >
> > An individual submission Internet Draft has been proposed to the WG
> > as the starting point for this work.  Unless there are any strong
> > objections or alternate proposals, the WG shall adopt the document
> > identified as 'draft-chisholm-netconf-event-01.txt' as the starting
> > point for this work.
> >
> > Goals and Milestones
> >
> >  Dec 05   Update charter
> >  Jan 06   Submit first version of NETCONF Notifications document
> >  Sep 06   Begin WGLC of NETCONF Notifications document
> >  Dec 06   Submit final version of NETCONF Notifications document to
> > IESG for
> >           consideration
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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/>
> >    
>
>
>
>  


--
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/>