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

Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 08:23:40AM -0800, Andy Bierman wrote:
> 
> You are absolutely correct that this confirmation mechanism
> is needed -- and we already have it -- RPC.
> 
> Define an rpc:  <notify-confirm> and have the manager call it
> to ACK one or more notifications.  If the 'ack-required' flag
> is set in the notification, then the agent will expect the manager
> to call this RPC, and if it does not, the agent can assume the manager
> didn't get it or understand it.
> 

A poor soul asked for an ACK, you try to sell him an ACK which will
lead to another ACK. Why not give him what he asked for, an ACK?

    If NETCONF server wants to send an acknowleged notification, then
    the notification is sent via an <rpc/> element which will be
    acknowledged by an <rpc-reply> element. If a NETCONF server wants
    to send an unacknowledged notification, then it uses the yet to
    be defined and agreed one-way RPC mechanism.

What is wrong with that?

/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/>