Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Sharon Chisholm wrote:

> <Andy, about confirmed notifications>
> 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?
>
> </Andy, about confirmed notifications>
>
> I don't. It can be added to the current proposal, but I've spoken with a
> lot of people who want robust messaging services, but they don't need
> this feature.
>
>  

Ok -- "can be added" is sort of a chicken and egg thing.
IMO, it's a non-trivial exercise to properly design and document this 
feature.
The details cannot really be discussed without this exercise though.

I'd like to settle this issue and move the charter proposal forward.

I am declaring that the "application ack" feature is shelved further
until a detailed written solution proposal is presented to the WG for 
consideration.
The WG members can then decide second-order issues such as mandatory vs. 
optional,
based on an evaluation of the proposal.  Until then, we will move on 
without it.

> 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/>