[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: notification charter proposal
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:50:56AM +0100, Tom Petch wrote:
> I always associate the term notification with SNMPv3 - I don't see
> it used elsewhere - which does not appear to define it but implies
> it is asynchronous, an unsolicited transmission, an event
> notification; and there is an implicit size limit because of UDP,
> something NETCONF lacks.
I think the term notification is not that unusual - even Corba has a
"notification service".
> The original charter did have asynchronous in it, which seems right
> to me, but I would like something about limiting the size as well,
> to stop people including a storage dump with the restart
> notification, but I don't have a good wording for it - perhaps 'a
> notification is a brief, asynchronous message indicating that an
> event has occurred'.
I believe it is not a good approach to try to prevent people from
mis-using a protocol by means of rules or definitions (basically this
is the source of CLRs).
I favour an approach where a document spells out why it is a really
bad idea to use a certain protocol feature in a certain way.
I think the current netconf protocol spec does not define minimum
required message sizes for the RPC or operations layer. Introducing
such constraints for notifications to prevent their misuse I think is
not helpful. In fact, it might be more helpful if during the greeting
boxes could just advertise the message sizes they support, much like
ESMTP does it.
/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/>