RE: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

["Hector Trevino \(htrevino\)" <htrevino@cisco.com>]

The last appendix in the netconf-event doc has a list of proposed syslog
fields which could be re-used. The syslog-draft has only 3 SD-IDs
defined thus far. Left them out of the write-up for now since there
needs to be some description of how these fields are adopted for use and
how they are maintained in sync w/the syslog work. Also, is the reverse
true (i.e. if the equivalent of SD-IDs are defined for NETCONF are they
then introduced into syslog?). We have looked at some of this at Cisco
and it seems to be a good idea (SD-ID equivalence) but haven't worked
out all the details. 

Hector
  
 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Andy Bierman
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:42 AM
To: Sharon Chisholm
Cc: netconf@ops.ietf.org
Subject: Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

Sharon Chisholm wrote:

><Andy>
>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.
></Andy>
>
>This one I think requires more discussion before we can declare some 
>consensus. I think there is a general sense that there is something 
>from the land of syslog that we want to take advantage of and learn 
>from, but I have not seen strong consensus as to what that is. And 
>which version of syslog are people looking to leverage?
>
>I think being able to tunnel syslog content into netconf is good for 
>transitioning and our internet draft discusses this a bit in one of the

>appendices. What is more interesting though, is some of the SD-Params 
>we have developed in syslog. I think bringing these in, not using 
>SD-Param grammar, but as properly tagged XML would be very very useful.
>
>  
>

I think this WG is a little better at discussing detailed text than
abstract concepts.  I suppose we will know which fields people agree on
when we get down in the details and hammer out every option of every
feature from top to bottom and back again.

So go ahead and write up details for SD-Params if you want.
At this point there isn't WG consensus for any particular field of any
message over any transport. 

However several people have expressed concern over reinventing syslog or
SNMP Notifications, and this will be a factor in the process.


>Sharon
>  
>

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/>
>
>
>  
>


--
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/>