Re: notification charter proposal

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de>]

On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 01:58:09PM -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
 
> Introducing the one-way-rpc mechanism is consistent with the Netconf
> architecture. It also allows the possibility of someday people adding
> other asynchronous operations with different behaviour.

I think the question to asked is whether a notification message needs
an application layer acknowledgement and if so what the semantics are
or whether we can get away without such an application layer
acknowledgement. Some options are:

a) The notification sender sends a notification and hopes that it
   will be understood by the receiver.

b) The notification sender sends a notification and gets a confirmation
   that the notification was understood to the extend that it could be
   handed over to an entity dealing with notifications. (This is what
   SNMP notifications actually do.)

c) The notification sender sends a notification and gets a confirmation
   that an entity dealing with notifications actually understood the
   semantics associated with the notification.

Once we understand and agree on the semantics we want to have (at the
moment a) seems to be on the table), we know whether we need a
response or if we can get away with a one-way message (in which case I
agree that the so called RPC layer should be extended to support
this).

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder		    International University Bremen
<http://www.eecs.iu-bremen.de/>	    P.O. Box 750 561, 28725 Bremen, Germany

--
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/>