RE: notification charter proposal

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

Ahh, the challenges of multiple transports with differing features. So,
if we chose (b) then we don't *need* to do anything the protocol for
BEEP transport but we *need* to include something in the protocol for
SSH transport (and SOAP I just don't know).

Of course Netconf is transport independent so if we chose (b) then we
*must* include in acks in the proto which means the BEEP transport will
have an extra ack.

Cheers, /gww 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org]
On
> Behalf Of Eliot Lear
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 13:13
> To: McDonald, Ira
> Cc: 'j.schoenwaelder@iu-bremen.de'; Phil Shafer; Chisholm, Sharon
> [CAR:5K50:EXCH]; netconf@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: notification charter proposal
> 
> McDonald, Ira wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I urge you folks to choose at least option (b), i.e., protocol
> > level acknowledgement of receipt of a notification.
> 
> You get this for free with BEEP.
> 
> --
> 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/>