terminolgy was Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

["Tom Petch" <nwnetworks@dial.pipex.com>]

Notification as a term I queried for two reasons, one being that I was unclear
whether or not you were using it in the SNMPv3 sense, and I still don't know the
answer.  I see it used in security (PKI, EAP), CCAMP (probably borrowing from
ITU-T), congestion (FECN) etc but only defined in SNMPv3.

So I would like some clarification as to what you mean by it, as opposed to
event message.  You prefer the former but why, what distinction are you drawing?

(My second reason is editorial, that event it used in so many places in the
draft that I anticipate a lot of editing if notification is preferred to event)

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andy Bierman" <ietf@andybierman.com>
To: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 7:32 PM
Subject: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points


> Hi,
>
> I'd like to try to gauge WG consensus on some recent
> mailing list issues.  Please object if you think I've
> totally got it wrong:
>
> Terminology:
>
>   The term Notification is preferred over Event Message.
>
> Max Message Size:
>
>   A NETCONF peer should advertise its max message.
>   The standard should not set a max-size although it is
>   understood that implementations can use a max message size.
>   There seems to be some consensus for mandating a minimum
>   value for this parameter, although it's not clear what the exact
>   should be (something between 1500 and 65535 bytes).
>
> Application-Level ACKs
>
>   It is not clear what a sender would do differently even
>   if it knew the receiver did not understand the message.
>   Without specific features in the protocol which would
>   need app-level ACKs (such as data model version negotiation),
>   the cost and complexity of this feature cannot be justified.
>
> Transport-Level ACKs
>
>   There is WG consensus that this feature is required.
>
> Feature Consistency at the Protocol Layer
>
>   There is WG consensus that the protocol-level notification
>   features must be consistent across the supported transports.
>   However, there is not yet WG consensus that NETCONF over SOAP
>   must be supported.  The discussions have focused on SSH and BEEP.
>   Each time it is mentioned that SOAP/HTTP cannot support this
>   feature, the issue is ignored.
>
> Notification Info Model/Payload
>
>   There is WG consensus to reuse syslog classification, although
>   the ability to transfer additional user data (similar to the OBJECTS
>   clause in an SNMP notification) is also required.  The option
>   of asking the SYSLOG WG for enhancements to RFC 3195 is also
>   possible, and some WG members prefer this approach if syslog
>   is going to be enhanced in any meaningful way.
>
> Events Draft as Starting Point
>
>   There is WG consensus to use draft-chisholm-netconf-event-01.txt as
>   the starting point for this work, even though there are strong
>   objections to specific details in the draft.  It is understood
>   that the WG is addressing the feature list in the WG charter,
>   not in this draft, if the two are in conflict.
>
>
>
> --
> 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/>