RE: notification charter proposal

["Glenn Waters" <gww@nortel.com>]

I view option (b) as being the most similar to SNMPv3 error codes. As I
understood it, option (b) it is trying to indicate protocol level
(error) responses. Option (c) is trying to indicate data level
(semantic) responses.

Regards, /gww 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]
On
> Behalf Of David B Harrington
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 11:17
> To: 'Phil Shafer'; j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
> Cc: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:5K50:EXCH]; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: notification charter proposal
> 
> Hi Phil,
> 
> My impression is that option c) is similar to error codes in an SNMPv3
> Response message that explains the problem, so the sender can try to
> correct the problem, such as by shortening a TooBig message by
> removing the largest varbind. I agree there are limited cases where a
> non-intelligent notification sender could auto-correct the semantics,
> and the TooBig issue could be handled via capabilities.
> 
> One response might be to NOT resend, and to not send future
> notifications of a specific type, if the sender is made aware that
> specific notifications can not be handled due to a semantics problem.
> 
> Another response might be to drop back to a different version or
> different protocol to get a message through. Some SNMP-based NMSs drop
> back to lesser  versions and protocols when the default stops working,
> such as dropping from SNMPv3 to SNMPv1 to ping.
> 
> It might also be useful if another notification was generated, either
> in netconf or syslog or snmp, that alerted the administrator that
> there is an interoperability problem related to a specific
> notification from managed device A to management application B.
> 
> Dbh
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org
> > [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Phil Shafer
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 10:42 AM
> > To: j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de
> > Cc: Sharon Chisholm; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: notification charter proposal
> >
> > Juergen Schoenwaelder writes:
> > >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.
> >
> > Dumb question:  what does one do with a system that supports you
> > option (c)?  If I sent a notification, the receiver tells me my
> > semantics are off, then what happens?  I resend?  I resend to
> another
> > target?  I auto-correct my semantics?  Are there realistic options
> > that I have as a non-intelligent notification sender?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >  Phil
> >
> > --
> > 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/>


--
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/>