Re: Questions on the Events draft ?

[Andy Bierman <ietf@andybierman.com>]

Hector Trevino (htrevino) wrote:

>  
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org 
> > [mailto:owner-netconf@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Lengyel
> > Sent: Monday, December 12, 2005 9:39 AM
> > To: netconf@ops.ietf.org
> > Subject: Questions on the Events draft ?
> >
> > - Will it be allowed to transfer multiple events in one 
> > message ? What is the reasoning pro and contra ?
> >    
>
> HT: Right now the doc doesn't state whether or not this is allowed.
> However, the assumption has been
> one event/message. With that said, I've gotten requests from people at
> Cisco to allow multiple events/msg
> so this needs to be discussed further.
>
> The primary reason for doing this is efficiency. 
>  

Seems reasonable -- IMO this is way different than multiple RPC requests 
per msg,
which keeps coming up for some reason.   The entire notification PDU should
be <= the max-message-size of the receiver BTW.

>  
>
> > - The sequence number belongs to the event or the event 
> > message ? What happens with it during node restart ?
> >    
>
> HT: The sequenceNumber is in the header. So, it is per msg. 
>
> The what happens part is being put back (it got lost in the edits)
> The value of sequence number may be reset (i.e. value is not preserved
> across reboots) following a device reload/reboot. 
>
>
>  
>
> > - Do we want anything like the active alarm list in RFC3877 ?
> >    
>
> HT: Eventually yes. But this would fall under the "modeling" work rather
> than extensions to support events.
>  

Thank you Hector for this answer!
We need to separate the content layer from the rest of the PDU,
just like every other NETCONF operation. 

I have a feeling there will not be agreement on a one-and-only content model
for notifications.  By NETCONF design, this is not a critical problem, 
but from
an operational POV, the less variants the better.  


>  
>
> > - Can an event be resent by the node with changed content 
> > e.g. a stronger severity critical instead of major ?
> >    
>
> HT: This is outside the scope of the document. Your implementation could
> do this. 
>
>  
>
> > - Chapter 3.5 Event classes: I would like to see how I can 
> > transfer the ITU X.733/736 event/alarm classes 
> > (processingErrorAlarm, QualityofServiceAlarm, 
> > CommunicationsAlarm, EnviromentalAlarm, etc.) in the netconf event
> >    
>
> HT: Right now there is no discussion on message encapsulation/transport
> other than syslog which is discussed in one of the
> appendices. Do you have a need/use for this (i.e. would u use it)?  
>  
>
> > regards Balazs
> >
> >    

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/>