Re: notification charter proposal

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Eliot Lear wrote:

> Glenn,
>
> What I'm saying is that while it is true that SSH is the "mandatory to
> implement", you only need to have application-level ACKs in the
> notification component if THEY are mandatory to implement.  Otherwise
> you can leave it to the BEEP mapping and be done with it.
>  

I agree with Juergen on this one.
I would like to make sure the mandatory transport (SSH)
can be used for all the notification features defined.
For the same reason, I don't think Rob's proposal to just
use Syslog over BEEP will work.  These ideas were floated
around before SSH was picked instead of BEEP as expected
at the time.  However, I strongly agree with Rob wrt/
not inventing new info models but rather using the
existing syslog info model to the greatest degree possible.

The feature set at the protocol level should be the same.
The transport implementation of that feature does not have
to be the same of course.

The thread on app-level ACKs is interesting, but keep in mind...
If you make it complicated enough, then it ends up looking
remarkably similar to our <rpc> and <rpc-reply>, except
in the other direction.  (E.g. the agent issues an <rpc>
that says "here take this", and the manager send a <rpc-reply>
that says <ok> or <rpc-error>(too-big | did-not-grok, etc.)

> Eliot
>  

Andy



--
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/>