[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: notification charter proposal
On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 10:42:17AM -0500, Phil Shafer wrote:
> 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?
If you talk to a person, you can get back either
a) nothing
b) "I heard you"
c) "I understood what you were saying"
It of course depends on the smartness of the whole system how you
react. Some humans are fine when they achieve b), some other
implementations feel better if they know they have achieved c).
Sure, implementation complexity goes up from a) to c) and the added
value of c) might not be worth the extra effort it causes. So perhaps
the decision is between a) and b).
/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/>