[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: notification charter proposal

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 08:59:09AM +0100, Eliot Lear wrote:
 
> First, if the notification feature is not mandatory, you're probably
> adding extra unwanted hair.  But if we go this route, let's make proper
> use of mapping mechanisms.  If SSH needs to add an ACK that's already
> there for BEEP, don't make BEEP have a 2nd unnecessary ACK.

I guess the BEEP ACK acknowledges the BEEP message and does not ack
that the netconf message was actually well formed and something that
could be handed over to a netconf notification consumer. This might
sound like splitting hairs - but I generally believe that a transport
level ack is not the same as a netconf level ack, unless the transport
actually implements something like c).

Since you know BEEP much better than I do, you can probably point me
to the section where the BEEP spec says it actually does have the ack
semantics we are talking about here (ie, the ack acknowledges the
upper layer correctness of the received BEEP message).

/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/>