Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points

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

---- Original Message -----
From: "Phil Shafer" <phil@juniper.net>
To: "Sharon Chisholm" <schishol@nortel.com>
Cc: <netconf@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 5:23 PM
Subject: Re: NETCONF Notifications: Consensus Points


> "Sharon Chisholm" writes:
> >As someone more often then not ending up on the consuming end of
> >management information, I tend to go for clarity over performance
>
> But SD-Params are clear, right?  They are name=value pairs.  We
> don't need anything more than that and another WG has a wonderful
> draft that we can leverage to make our work easier in three ways,
> specification, implementation, and acceptance.  We incorporate the
> syslog WG's work by reference, vendors leverage their new NG syslog
> implementation both for syslog and for netconf, and using syslog
> allows providers to leverage their new and old syslog infrastructure
> and tools.
>
> We get performance _and_ clarity.  It's simpler _and_ easier.  It's
> a dessert topping _and_ a floor cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
>  Phil

Sounds great but be aware that in November, the AD has issued a

"formal Consultation prior to concluding the working group"

on the grounds that consensus is unlikely to be reached.  So if you like SDs,
then sign up to syslog and agree with everything that the WG chair or Rainer
(I-D editor) proposes.  Then netconf will have an RFC to reference:-)

Tom Petch


--
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/>