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

Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

Juergen Schoenwaelder wrote:


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?


Because I don't think it is good engineering to add a lot
of complexity for an optional-to-implement feature.
There is way too much of that "kitchen-sink" approach in the IETF.

Let's make it mandatory for everybody to implement if it's worth having.
How many people still want it then?


/js



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/>